Chattisgarh High Court
Amit Mittal vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 9 July, 2025
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2025:CGHC:31533-DB
Digitally
signed by
SHOAIB
NAFR
SHOAIB ANWAR
ANWAR Date:
2025.07.10
10:32:36
+0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 83 of 2024
1 - Amit Mittal S/o Bharat Bhusan Mittal Aged About 42 Years R/o
Nagpur Road, Yashda Apartments, Bhandara, Maharashtra
--- Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Home,
Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur, Cg
2 - Superintendent Of Police Durg,, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
3 - Station House Officer Ps- Mahila, Thana,, District : Durg,
Chhattisgarh
4 - Smt. Shail Mittal W/o Amit Mittal, R/o Khandelwal Colony,
Madhuban Vatika, Durg, Ps- Durg,, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s)
2
CRMP No. 1465 of 2023
1 – Bharat Bhushan Mittal S/o. Late Rikhiram, Aged About 72 Years
R/o. Vishal Enterprises, Nagpur Road, National Highway No. 06,
Bhandara, Maharashtra,
2 – Saroj Rani Mittal, W/o. Bharat Bhu8shan Mittal, Aged About 67
Years R/o. Vishal Enterprises, Nagpur Road, National Highway No. 06,
Bhandara, Maharashtra.
—Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 – State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Home,
Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2 – Superintendent Of Police, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh.
3 – Station House Officer, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Durg
Chhattisgarh.
4 – Smt. Shail Mittal, W/o. Amit Mittal, R/o Khandelwal Colony,
Madhuban Vatika, Durg, P.S. Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh.
— Respondent(s)
(Cause title taken from CIS)
For Petitioner(s) :Shri Kishore Bhaduri, Senior Advocate with
Shri Harsh Dave, Advocate
For Respondent(s)/State :Shri Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer
For Respondent No. 4 :Shri Prabhat Kumar Saxena, Advocate.
3
Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
09.07.2025
1. Heard Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, learned Senior Advocate with Shri
Harsh Dave, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Shailendra
Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No. 1 to 3
as well as Mr. Prabhat Kumar Saxena, learned counsel for the
respondent No. 4.
2. Since both the petitions arising out of same crime number and
also involve similar facts and grounds they are being considered
and decided by this common order
3. The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioners, are that on
30.03.2019 a complaint was filed by respondent No.4 Smt. Shail
Mittal, who is the wife of petitioner Amit Mittal and daughter-in-law
of Bharat Bhushan Mitta and Saroj Rani Mittal, before the Officer
In-Charge, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Durg alleging that
the marriage between respondent No. 4 and petitioner/husband
was solemnized on 02.07.2006. At the time of marriage the
parents of the complainant/respondent No. 4 herein gave all the
essential articles, golds jewellery. It is alleged that 3 months right
after the marriage the petitioner husband had begun treating her
cruelly, forcing her to perform acts of unnatural sex and
4
incessantly demanding that she ask her family for dowry
physically abusing her upon refusal. The complaint further alleged
that after the birth of their children the physical and verbal abuse
had worsened, extending to involvement of the complainant’s
family. Immediately after filing of the initial complaint a
government medical practitioner examined the complainant. The
medical reports dated 28.01.2019 & 31.03.2019 all opined that no
visible signs of inner or outer injury could be made out of the
complainant’s intimate parts as claimed in her complaints. The
complainant then moved to court (Durg, C.G.) where the learned
trial magistrate charged criminal charges against the petitioners
under Sections 498-A, 323, 34 and 377 of IPC. The petitioners in
turn filed a revision petition against said charges in the sessions
court which subsequently got quashed. This petition has been
filed to challenge the illegal arbitrary and malicious action of the
respondent authorities in proceedings against the present
petitioners as well as to challenge the order against the revision
petition filed by the petitioners in the sessions court citing lack of
prima facie notion of any criminal action from the side of the
petitioners as per Sections 377, 33, 498-A and 34 of IPC. Hence
this petition.
4. It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that
petitioner in CrMP No. 83/2024 is husband of respondent No.4
and out of their wedlock, two child were born. It is stated that there
was a matrimonial dispute between petitioner/husband and
5
respondent No.4 as they are husband and wife and their marriage
was solemnized on 02.07.2006 and hence, the present
proceedings against the petitioner in CrMP No. 83/2024 who is
husband and petitioner No. 1 and 2 in CrMP No.1465/2023 who
are in-laws of respondent No. 4 be quashed.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent
No.4 has submitted that criminal revision has been filed by
petitioners and respondent No.4 being Criminal Revision No
195/2021 and the matter was referred to the Mediation Center and
mediation between the parties has failed. In view of above, it
would be futile exercise for sending the matter again before the
Mediation Center.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
documents appended with petition.
7. In the matter of Geeta Mehrotra and another v. State of Uttar
Pradesh and another1, the Supreme Court has 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, 323, 504 and 506 of the IPC would not be
justified as cognizance would result in abuse of judicial process.
8. In the matter of K. Subba Rao and others v. State of Telangana
represented by its Secretary, Department of Home and
1
(2012) 10 SCC 741
6
others2 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.
9. In the matter of Rashmi Chopra v. State of Uttar Pradesh and
Another3, it has been held by the Supreme Court relying upon
the principle of law laid down in State of Haryana and others v.
Bhajan Lal and others4 that criminal proceedings can be
allowed to proceed only when a prima facie offence is disclosed
and further held that judicial process is a solemn proceeding
which cannot be allowed to be converted into an instrument of
oppression or harassment and the High Court should not hesitate
in exercising the jurisdiction to quash the proceedings if the
proceedings deserve to be quashed in line of parameters laid
down by the Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal (supra) and further
held that in absence of specific allegation regarding anyone of the
accused except common and general allegations against
everyone, no offence under Section 498A IPC is made out and
quashed the charges for offence under Section 498A of the IPC
being covered by category seven as enumerated in Bhajan Lal
2
(2018) 14 SCC 452
3
2019 SCC OnLine SC 620
4
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
7
(supra) by holding as under:-
“24. Coming back to the allegations in the complaint
pertaining to Section 498A and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act. A
perusal of the complaint indicates that the allegations
against the appellants for offence under Section 498A
and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act are general and sweeping.
No specific incident dates or details of any incident has
been mentioned in the complaint. The complaint having
been filed after proceeding for divorce was initiated by
Nayan Chopra in State of Michigan, where Vanshika
participated and divorce was ultimately granted. A few
months after filing of the divorce petition, the complaint
has been filed in the Court of C.J.M., Gautam Budh
Nagar with the allegations as noticed above. The
sequence of the events and facts and circumstances of
the case leads us to conclude that the complaint under
Section 498A and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act have been filed
as counter blast to divorce petition proceeding in State
of Michigan by Nayan Chopra.
25. There being no specific allegation regarding any one
of the applicants except common general allegation
against everyone i.e. “they started harassing the
daughter of the applicant demanding additional dowry of
one crore” and the fact that all relatives of the husband,
namely, father, mother, brother, mother’s sister and
husband of mother’s sister have been roped in clearly
indicate that application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
was filed with a view to harass the applicants…..”
10. The Apex Court, in Payal Sharma v. State of Punjab & Another
{Cr.A. No. 4773/2024, decided on 26.11.2024} had, relying on the
decision in Geeta Mehrotra (supra), Kahkashan Kausar @
8
Sonam & Others v. State of Bihar & Others {(2022) 6 SCC
599}, Bhajan Lal (supra), and Umesh Kumar v. State of
Andhra Pradesh & Another {(2013) 10 SCC 591}, had quashed
the FIR and the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom.
11. Very recently, the Apex Court, in Dara Lakshmi Narayan &
Others v. State of Telangana & Another {Cr.A. No. 5199 of
2024, decided on 10.12.2024}, has observed as under:
“25. A mere reference to the names of family members
in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute,
without specific allegations indicating their active
involvement should be nipped in the bud. It is a well-
recognised fact, borne out of judicial experience, that
there is often a tendency to implicate all the members of
the husband’s family when domestic disputes arise out
of a matrimonial discord. Such generalised and
sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete
evidence or particularised allegations cannot form the
basis for criminal prosecution. Courts must exercise
caution in such cases to prevent misuse of legal
provisions and the legal process and avoid unnecessary
harassment of innocent family members. In the present
case, appellant Nos.2 to 6, who are the members of the
family of appellant No.1 have been living in different
cities and have not resided in the matrimonial house of
appellant No.1 and respondent No.2 herein. Hence, they
cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution and the
same would be an abuse of the process of the law in the
absence of specific allegations made against each of
them.
9
26. In fact, in the instant case, the first appellant and his
wife i.e. the second respondent herein resided at
Jollarpeta, Tamil Nadu where he was working in
Southern Railways. They were married in the year 2015
and soon thereafter in the years 2016 and 2017, the
second respondent gave birth to two children. Therefore,
it cannot be believed that there was any harassment for
dowry during the said period or that there was any
matrimonial discord. Further, the second respondent in
response to the missing complaint filed by the first
appellant herein on 05.10.2021 addressed a letter dated
11.11.2021 to the Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Thirupathur Sub Division requesting for closure of the
said complaint as she had stated that she had left the
matrimonial home on her own accord owing to a quarrel
with the appellant No.1 because of one Govindan with
whom the second respondent was in contact over
telephone for a period of ten days. She had also
admitted that she would not repeat such acts in future. In
the above conspectus of facts, we find that the
allegations of the second respondent against the
appellants herein are too far-fetched and are not
believable.
27. xxx xxx xxx
28. The inclusion of Section 498A of the IPC by way of
an amendment was intended to curb cruelty inflicted on
a woman by her husband and his family, ensuring swift
intervention by the State. However, in recent years, as
there have been a notable rise in matrimonial disputes
across the country, accompanied by growing discord
and tension within the institution of marriage,
consequently, there has been a growing tendency to
10misuse provisions like Section 498A of the IPC as a tool
for unleashing personal vendetta against the husband
and his family by a wife. Making vague and generalised
allegations during matrimonial conflicts, if not
scrutinized, will lead to the misuse of legal processes
and an encouragement for use of arm twisting tactics by
a wife and/or her family. Sometimes, recourse is taken to
invoke Section 498A of the IPC against the husband and
his family in order to seek compliance with the
unreasonable demands of a wife. Consequently, this
Court has, time and again, cautioned against
prosecuting the husband and his family in the absence
of a clear prima facie case against them.
29. We are not, for a moment, stating that any woman
who has suffered cruelty in terms of what has been
contemplated under Section 498A of the IPC should
remain silent and forbear herself from making a
complaint or initiating any criminal proceeding. That is
not the intention of our aforesaid observations but we
should not encourage a case like as in the present one,
where as a counterblast to the petition for dissolution of
marriage sought by the first appellant-husband of the
second respondent herein, a complaint under Section
498A of the IPC is lodged by the latter. In fact, the
insertion of the said provision is meant mainly for the
protection of a woman who is subjected to cruelty in the
matrimonial home primarily due to an unlawful demand
for any property or valuable security in the form of
dowry. However, sometimes it is misused as in the
present case.
30. In the above context, this Court in G.V. Rao vs.
L.H.V. Prasad, (2000) 3 SCC 693 observed as follows:
11
“12. There has been an outburst of matrimonial
disputes in recent times. Marriage is a sacred
ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable
the young couple to settle down in life and live
peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly
erupt which often assume serious proportions
resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which
elders of the family are also involved with the result
that those who could have counselled and brought
about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their
being arrayed as accused in the criminal case.
There are many other reasons which need not be
mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial
litigation so that the parties may ponder over their
defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by
mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court
of law where it takes years and years to conclude
and in that process the parties lose their “young”
days in chasing their “cases” in different courts.”
31. Further, this Court in Preeti Gupta vs. State of
Jharkhand (2010) 7 SCC 667 held that the courts have
to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with
these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into
consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The
allegations of harassment by the husband’s close
relatives who had been living in different cities and never
visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant
resided would have an entirely different complexion. The
allegations of the complainant are required to be
scrutinized with great care and circumspection.
32. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the impugned
FIR No.82 of 2022 filed by respondent No.2 was initiated
12
with ulterior motives to settle personal scores and
grudges against appellant No.1 and his family members
i.e., appellant Nos.2 to 6 herein. Hence, the present
case at hand falls within category (7) of illustrative
parameters highlighted in Bhajan Lal. Therefore, the
High Court, in the present case, erred in not exercising
the powers available to it under Section 482 CrPC and
thereby failed to prevent abuse of the Court’s process by
continuing the criminal prosecution against the
appellants.”
Observing the aforesaid, the Apex Court quashed the FIR, the
charge sheet and the consequential criminal proceedings
pending before the learned trial Court.
12. In the complaint so made, the complainant has only made
omnibus and general allegations against the petitioners without
being full particulars about date and place that the petitioners
treated her with cruelty for not bringing money towards dowry.
There is no specific allegation regarding the petitioners (in-laws)
except common and general allegations that they have
demanded cash amount.
13. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the
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 petitioners/in-laws, we
are of the considered opinion that prima-facie no offence under
Section 498-A, 323 and 34 of the IPC is made out for prosecuting
(petitioner No. 1 – Bharat Bhushan Mittal and petitioner No.2
13
-Smt.Saroj Rani Mittal in Cr.M.P No. 1465/2023) for the above-
stated offences.
14. As a fallout and consequence of the above-stated legal analysis,
Criminal Revision No. 195/2021 pending in the Court of Learned
Sessions Court, Durg (Chhattisgarh) arising out of Crime No.
22/2019 registered at Police Station- Mahina Thana Durg District
Durg for offence under Sections 498 A, 323 and 34 of the IPC is
hereby quashed to the extent of (petitioner No. 1 – Bharat
Bhushan Mittal and petitioner No.2 -Smt.Saroj Rani Mittal in
Cr.M.P No. 1465/2023). Prosecution against her husband
(petitioner – Amit Mittal in Cr.M.P. No. 83/2024 shall continue.
Concerned trial Court will decide criminal case pending against
petitioner – Amit Mittal strictly in accordance with law without
being influenced by any of these observations made
hereinabove.
15. The Cr.M.P No. 83/2024 under Section 482 CrPC is dismissed
and the Cr.M.P No. 1465/ 2023 is allowed to the extent indicated
hereinabove. No cost(s).
Sd/- Sd/-
(Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Shoaib/Amardeep
[ad_1]
Source link