Chattisgarh High Court
Ajay Kumar Dahire vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 31 July, 2025
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
Digitally
signed by
SHOAIB
ANWAR
SHOAIB
ANWAR
Date:
2025:CGHC:37555-DB
2025.08.01
17:14:32
+0530
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 2403 of 2024
1 - Ajay Kumar Dahire S/o Shri Rekhchand Dahire Aged About
28 Years R/o Village Salheghori Police Station Nawagarh,
District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.
2 - Rekhchand Dahire S/o Late Awadha Dahire Aged About 58
Years R/o Village Salheghori Police Station Nawagarh, District-
Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.
3 - Smt. Laxmi Bai W/o Shri Rekhchand Dahire Aged About 55
Years R/o Village Salheghori Police Station Nawagarh, District-
Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.
4 - Jai Kumar Dahire S/o Shri Rekhchand Dahire Aged About 34
Years R/o Village Salheghori Police Station Nawagarh, District-
Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.
5 - Smt. Urmila Dahire W/o Shri Raj Kumar Dahire Aged About
35 Years R/o Village Salheghori Police Station Nawagarh,
District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.
6 - Smt. Nageshwari Dahire W/o Shri Jai Kumar Dahire Aged
About 28 Years R/o Village Salheghori Police Station Nawagarh,
District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.
... Petitioners
versus
1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Sho Nawagarh, District-
Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.
2 - Smt. Pushpa Dahire W/o Ajay Kumar Dahire Aged About 33
Years D/o Shri Ubaran Das Barman, R/o Ward No. 15, Indra
Awas Colony Nawagarh P.S. Nawagarh, District- Bemetara,
2
Chhattisgarh.
... Respondents
For Petitioners : Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, Advocate.
For Respondent/State : Mr. Sakib Ahmad, Panel Lawyer.
For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Vishwanath Prasad Shriwas, Advocate.
Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
31.07.2025
1. The present petitions have been filed by the petitioners with the
following prayers:-
“It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may
kindly be pleased to allow the application by making an
order to quash the Crime No.87/2023 dated 02/04/2023
& quash the entire criminal proceedings pending before
JMFC Bemetara, District:Bemetara as Criminal Case
No.2003/2023 and discharge from the case to the
petitioners.”
2. As per mediation report dated 24/10/2024, mediation between
the parties has failed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would that the petitioner
No.1 is the husband, petitioner No.2 is the father-in-law,
petitioner No.3 is the mother-in-law, petitioner No.4 is the
brother-in-law and petitioner Nos.5 & 6 are the sister-in-law of
the respondent No.2/complainant. Marriage of petitioner No.1
was performed with the respondent No.2 on 02.05.2019 and
3
just after the marriage, she went to Salheghori along with her
husband and she was residing with her husband. The
respondent No. 2 during residing with her husband, always
threatened him and his entire family members and she wants to
live separately. He would submit that the victim used to quarrel
with the family member of the petitioners and after sometime,
she went to Indra Awas Colony Nawagarh District Bemetara
where she delivered one male child in June 2020, but petitioner
No. 1 and his family members have no knowledge about the
fact of the delivery of the child. The husband tried to take his
wife many times, but the complainant/respondent No.2 refused
to live with him and forced to live separately from his parents.
He further submits that ‘n’ numbers of social meetings and
counselings were conducted, but she never wants to live with
the parents of the petitioner No.1. On 02/04/2023, false
complaint was lodged against the petitioners by the respondent
No.2/complainant under Section 498-A, 34 of the IPC.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents opposes the submission
made by learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that
the dowry demand has been made by the petitioners, due to
which, offence under Section 498 A r/w 34 of IPC has been
registered against the petitioners.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the
pleadings and documents.
4
6. The Supreme Court in the mater of State of Haryana and
others v. Bhajan Lal and others 1 laid down the principles of
law relating to the exercise of extraordinary power under Article
226 of the Constitution of India to quash the first information
report and it has been held that such power can be exercised
either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise
to secure the ends of justice. In paragraph 102 of the report,
their Lordships laid down the broad principles where such
power under Article 226 of the Constitution/Section 482 of the
CrPC should be exercised, which are as under: –
7. “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of
the various relevant provisions of the Code
under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law
enunciated by this Court in a series of
decisions relating to the exercise of the
extraordinary power under Article 226 or the
inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code
which we have extracted and reproduced
above, we give the following categories of
cases by way of illustration wherein such power
could be exercised either to prevent abuse of
the process of any court or otherwise to secure
the ends of justice, though it may not be
possible to lay down any precise, clearly
defined and sufficiently channelised and
inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to
give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases
wherein such power should be exercised.
(1)Where the allegations made in the
first information report or the complaint,
even if they are taken at their face value
and accepted in their entirety do not
prima facie constitute any offence or
make out a case against the accused.
1 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
5
(2)Where the allegations in the first
information report and other materials, if
any, accompanying the FIR do not
disclose a cognizable offence, justifying
an investigation by police officers under
Section 156(1) of the Code except
under an order of a Magistrate within
the purview of Section 155(2) of the
Code.
(3)Where the uncontroverted allegations
made in the FIR or complaint and the
evidence collected in support of the
same do not disclose the commission of
any offence and make out a case
against the accused.
(4)Where, the allegations in the FIR do
not constitute a cognizable offence but
constitute only a non-cognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted by
a police officer without an order of a
Magistrate as contemplated under
Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5)Where the allegations made in the
FIR or complaint are so absurd and
inherently improbable on the basis of
which no prudent person can ever reach
a just conclusion that there is sufficient
ground for proceeding against the
accused.
(6)Where there is an express legal bar
engrafted in any of the provisions of the
Code or the concerned Act (under which
a criminal proceeding is instituted) to
the institution and continuance of the
proceedings and/or where there is a
specific provision in the Code or the
concerned Act, providing efficacious
redress for the grievance of the
aggrieved party.
6
(7)Where a criminal proceeding is
manifestly attended with mala fide and/or
where the proceeding is maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the accused and
with a view to spite him due to private and
personal grudge.
103. We also give a note of caution to the
effect that the power of quashing a criminal
proceeding should be exercised very
sparingly and with circumspection and that
too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court
will not be justified in embarking upon an
enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or
otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR
or the complaint and that the extraordinary
or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary
jurisdiction on the court to act according to
its whim or caprice.”
8. Having noticed the scope of interference by this Court in the
petition relating to quashment of FIR, reverting to the facts of
the present case, it is quite vivid that in the impugned FIR,
petitioners have been charged for offence under Sections 498-
A, 34 of the IPC.
9. Chapter XXA of the IPC deals with offence of cruelty by
husband or relatives of husband. Section 498A of the IPC
defines the offence of cruelty as under:-
“498 A. Husband or relative of husband of a
woman subjecting her to cruelty.–Whoever,
being the husband or the relative of the
husband of a woman, subjects such woman
to cruelty shall be punished with
imprisonment for a term which may extend
to three years and shall also be liable to
fine.
7
Explanation.–For the purpose of this
section, “cruelty” means–
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a
nature as is likely to drive the woman to
commit suicide or to cause grave injury or
danger to life, limb or health (whether
mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such
harassment is with a view to coercing her or
any person related to her to meet any
unlawful demand for any property or
valuable security or is on account of failure
by her or any person related to her to meet
such demand.”
10. A careful perusal of the aforesaid provision would show
that in order to establish offence under Section 498A of the IPC,
the prosecution must establish,
(i) That, woman must be married;
(ii) She has been subjected to cruelty or
harassment and
(iii) Such cruelty or harassment must have been
shown either by husband of the woman or by
relative of her husband.
11. The word ‘cruelty’ within the meaning of Section 498/A of
the IPC has been explained in Explanation appended to Section
498A of the IPC. It consists of two clauses namely clause (a)
and clause (b). To attract Section 498A of the IPC, it must be
established that cruelty or harassment to the wife to coerce her
or cause bodily injury to herself or to commit suicide or the
harassment was to compel her to fulfill illegal demand for dowry.
It is not every type of harassment or cruelty that would attract
Section 498/A of the IPC. Explanation (b) to Section 498A of the
IPC contemplates harassment of woman to coerce or any
8
relation of her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or
valuable security. The complainant if wants to come within the
ambit of Explanation (b) to Section 498A of the IPC, she can
succeed if it is proved that there was an unlawful demand by
the husband or any of his relatives with respect to money or of
some valuable security.
12. Similarly, in the matter of Sunder Babu and others v.
State of Tamil Nadu2 delay in filing complaint against accused
therein was taken note of by their Lordships of the Supreme
Court holding the case to be covered by Category Seven of
para-102 highlighted in Bhajan Lal‘s case (supra), the
prosecution for offence under Section 498A of the IPC and
Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was quashed.
13. In the matter of K. Subba Rao and others v. State of
Telangana represented by its Secretary, Department of
Home and others3 their Lordships of the Supreme Court
delineated the duty of the criminal Courts while proceeding
against relatives of victim’s husband and held that the Court
should be careful in proceeding against distant relatives in
crime pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths and
further held that relatives of husband should not be roped in on
the basis of omnibus allegations, unless specific instances of
their involvement in offences are made out.
2 (2009) 14 SCC 244
3 (2018) 14 SCC 452
9
14. Similarly, in the matter of Geeta Mehrotra (supra), the
Supreme Court held that casual reference to the family member
of the husband in FIR as co-accused particularly when there is
no specific allegation and complaint did not disclose their active
involvement. It was held that cognizance of matter against them
for offence under Sections 498-A, 34 of the IPC would not be
justified as cognizance would result in abuse of judicial process.
15. Having noticed the legal position qua quashing the FIR, the
question would be whether taking the contents of the FIR as it
is, offence under Sections 498-A, 34 of the IPC?
16. In the present case, prior to registration of the FIR a
preliminary enquiry has been conducted and in the preliminary
enquiry, it was found that there is prima facie cognizable case is
made out against the petitioners, thus on the basis of said
written report, offence under the aforementioned sections has
been registered against the petitioners and investigation is
going on.
17. In the complaint so made, the complainant has only made
omnibus and general allegations against the petitioners without
being full particulars about and date and place. There is no
specific allegation against the petitioners except common and
general allegations against them.
18. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the
10
parties, material available on record; perusing the FIR in which
no specific allegations have been made and only bald and
omnibus allegations have been made against the petitioner
No.2-Rekhchand Dahire (Father-in-law), No.3-Smt. Laxmi Bai
(Mother-in-law), No.4-Jai Kumar Dahire (Brother-in-law), No.5-
Smt. Urmila Dahire and No.6-Smt. Nageshwari Dahire(Sisters-
in-laws); and specific allegations have been made against the
petitioner No.1-Ajay Kumar Dahire/husband, we are of the
considered opinion that prima-facie no offence under Section
498-A, 34 of the IPC is made out for prosecuting the petitioner
No.2-Rekhchand Dahire (Father-in-law), No.3-Smt. Laxmi Bai
(Mother-in-law), No.4-Jai Kumar Dahire (Brother-in-law), No.5-
Smt. Urmila Dahire and No.6-Smt. Nageshwari Dahire(Sisters-
in-laws) for the above-stated offences and the prosecution
against them for the aforesaid offence is covered by Category 1,
3 & 7 of para-102 of the judgment rendered by the Supreme
Court in Bhajan Lal‘s case (supra) and as such, liable to be
quashed.
19. As a fallout and consequence of the above-stated legal
analysis, FIR bearing No. 87/2023 registered at Police Station-
Bemetra, District:Bemetara, Chhattisgarh on 02/04/2023 for
offence under Sections 498-A, 34 of the IPC, charge-sheet
dated 19/06/2023 and consequential proceeding in Criminal
Case No.2003/2023 are hereby quashed to the
extent of petitioner No.2-Rekhchand Dahire (Father-in-law),
11
No.3-Smt. Laxmi Bai (Mother-in-law), No.4-Jai Kumar Dahire
(Brother-in-law), No.5-Smt. Urmila Dahire and No.6-Smt.
Nageshwari Dahire(Sisters-in-law) of the respondent
No.2/complainant. However, prosecution against the husband of
respondent No.2 i.e. petitioner No.1-Ajay Kumar Dahire shall
continue and be concluded expeditiously without being
prejudice and influence from any observation made by this
Court in the order.
20. Resultantly, the petition filed by the petitioner
No.1/husband is dismissed and so far it relates to petitioner
No.2-Rekhchand Dahire (Father-in-law), No.3-Smt. Laxmi Bai
(Mother-in-law), No.4-Jai Kumar Dahire (Brother-in-law), No.5-
Smt. Urmila Dahire and No.6-Smt. Nageshwari Dahire(Sisters-
in-laws) stands allowed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Amardeep/Shoaib