Chattisgarh High Court
Ashish Upadhayay vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 9 April, 2025
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2025:CGHC:16659-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 882 of 2025
1 - Rupendra Upadhayay S/o Ashok Upadhayay Aged About 34 Years
R/o House No. B-06, Gayatri Parisar Colony, Thana Sarkanda, District
Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
2 - Sandhya Upadhayay W/o Ashok Upadhayay Aged About 55 Years
R/o House No. B-06, Gayatri Parisar Colony, Thana Sarkanda, District
Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
3 - Ashish Upadhayay S/o Ashok Upadhayay Aged About 30 Years R/o
House No. B-06, Gayatri Parisar Colony, Thana Sarkanda, District
Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
4 - Smt. Shruti Upadhayay W/o Ashish Upadhayay Aged About 28
Years R/o House No. B-06, Gayatri Parisar Colony, Thana Sarkanda,
District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
--- Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station
- Mahila Thana, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
2 - Priya Sharma W/o Rupendra Upadhayay Aged About 32 Years R/o
B-6 Gayatri Parisar, Colony Sarkanda, Thana Sarkanda, District
Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s)
2
CRMP No. 945 of 2025
1 – Ashish Upadhayay S/o Ashok Kumar Upadhayay Aged About 30
Years R/o Gayatri Parisar, B/06, Mopka, Thana Sarkanda, District
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
2 – Shruti Kiran Mishra W/o Ashish Upadhayay Aged About 27 Years
R/o Gayatri Parisar, B/06, Mopka, Thana Sarkanda, District Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh.
3 – Rupendra Upadhayay S/o Ashok Kumar Upadhayay Aged About 34
Years R/o Gayatri Parisar, B/06, Mopka, Thana Sarkanda, District
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
—Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 – State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station-
Sarkanda, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
2 – Priya Sharma W/o Rupendra Upadhayay Aged About 32 Years R/o
B/06, Gayatri Parisar, Colony Sarkanda, Thana Sarkanda, District
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
— Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Vikas Pandey, Advocate
ForRespondentNo.1/State : Mr. Sakib Ahmed, Panel Lawyer
For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Sarfaraz Khan, Advocate
Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
09/04/2025
Proceedings of this matter have been taken through video
conferencing.
Heard Mr. Vikas Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also
3
heard Mr. Sakib Ahmed, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for
respondent No. 1/State and Mr. Sarfaraz Khan, learned counsel,
appearing for respondent No. 2.
2. The petition (Cr.M.P. No.882/2025) has been filed by the petitioners
with the following prayer :
“It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may
kindly be pleased to allow this instant petition and
quash FIR bearing Crime No. 66/2024 dated
14.10.2024 and charge sheet bearing No. 66/24
dated 14.12.2024 filed against the petitioners by the
Police Station Mahila Thana Bilaspur (CG) for
commission of offence which is punishable under
Sections 85,296,351(3), 115(2), 3(5) of BNS Act and
the order dated 16.12.2024 passed in Criminal Case
No. 18631/2024, passed by the Judicial magistrate
First Class, Bilaspur, district Bilaspur (CG) whereby
the Magistrate has taken the cognizance of the
charge sheet and the entire consequential
proceedings, in the interest of justice.”
3. The petition (Cr.M.P. No.945/2025) has been filed by the
petitioners with the following prayer :
“It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may
kindly be pleased to allow this instant petition and
quash FIR bearing Crime No. 14447/2024 dated
16.11.2024 and charge sheet bearing No. 1066/24
dated 17.11.2024 filed against the petitioners by
the police station Sarkanda District Bilaspur CG for
commission of offence which is punishable under
Sections 296, 115(2), 351(2) and 3(5) of the VNS
Act and the order dated 25.11.2024 passed in
Criminal Case No. 11494/2024 passed by the
Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bilaspur, District
4Bilaspur (CG) whereby the Magistrate has taken
the cognizance of the charge sheet and the entire
consequential proceedings, in the interest of
justice.”
4. Prosecution case in brief is that the petitioner No.1/Rupendra
Upadhyay got married with respondent No.2/Priya Sharma on
11.05.2023 as per Hindu rituals and customs. The petitioner No.1 is
working in the private company whereas the respondent No.2 is a
practicing Advocate at CG High Court. On 14.10.2024, the respondent
No.2 filed a written complaint before the police station Mahila Thana,
Bilaspur stating that the petitioner and his family members were
subjecting her to harassment for demand of dowry. Due to the said
dispute, the respondent No.2 left her matrimonial house and went to
her parent’s house. The FIR was lodged at Mahila Thana, Bilaspur
against the petitioners on 14.10.2024 bearing Crime No. 66/2024 for
the offence punishable under Sections 85,296,351(3), 115(2), 3(5) of
BNS Act.
5. In Cr.M.P. No. 882/2025, learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that the allegations made in the FIR and the entire charge
sheet shows that none of the ingredients of the offence punishable
under Sections 85,296,351(3), 115(2), 3(5) of BNS Act is made out in
the present case. He submits that the court had taken cognizance of
the matter without considering the entire material on record as the court
failed to see that the complainant is an Advocate and working in the CG
High court and is residing with her parents. He submits that the
petitioner has repeatedly threatened the petitioners for implicating them
in a false case and the complaint has also been made by the
5
petitioners. The petitioners would like to bring on record certain facts
which are germane for proper adjudication of this case. It is further
contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the charge sheet has
already been submitted before the competent court and the learned
Court had already taken the cognizance of the charge sheet. He
submits that the petitioners have already been granted anticipatory bail
by the learned trial Court.
6. In Cr.M.P. No. 945/2025, learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that the petitioner No.3 got married with the respondent No.2
on 11.05.2023 as per Hindu customs and rituals. Petitioner No.1 is
brother of the petitioner No.3 and petitioner No.2 is the sister-in-law of
the petitioner No.3 and are residing at Sarkanda, Bilaspur. It is
submitted that immediately after marriage, the petitioner No.1 started
residing with respondent No.2 at Sarkanda. The respondent No.2 had
lodged FIR against her husband/petitioner No.1 and his family
members alleging that they have assaulted her and on the basis of
which Crime No. 1447/2024 for the offence under Sections
296,115(2),351(2) and 3(5)of the BNS Act was lodged against the
petitioners. He submits that the allegations as levelled against the
petitioners are baseless and without any substance as the petitioners
have never assaulted the complainant. He submits that though the
charge sheet filed against the petitioners was filed without investigation
yet by the order dated 25.11.2024 passed in Criminal case No.
11494/2024, the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, District
Bilaspur (CG) took cognizance against the petitioners for commission
of offence punishable under Sections 296,115(2),351(2) and 3(5)of the
BNS Act.
6
7. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners
that in Cr.M.P. No. 882/2025, after completion of the investigation the
Police concerned has filed the charge-sheet on 14.12.2024 before the
Judicial Magistrate Fist Class, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (CG) in
Criminal Case No. 18631/2024 and in Cr.M.P. No. 945/2025 charge
sheet has been filed on 17.12.2024 before learned Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) in Criminal Case No.
11494/2024, but till date no charge is framed.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners further states that an act to
constitute ofence, the allegation should demonstrate the intention and
act of the present petitioners towards the respondent No. 2, as the
petitioners have never done any such act which falls under definition of
Section 85 of the BNS and even if entire case of the prosecution would
be taken in its own face value than also the ingredients of Section 85 of
the BNS would not made out against the petitioners. He further states
that no specific act of the petitioners have been attributed in the FIR
and the petitioners have been implicated in crime in question only on
the basis of vague, general and omnibus type statement of the
complainant/wife with intent to harass the petitioners, therefore,
allowing the continuation of criminal case against them would amount
to abuse of process of law and thus, the impugned FIR, charge-sheet
as well as criminal proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G.) as Criminal Case No.
18631/2024 in Cr.M.P. No. 882/2025 and Criminal Case No.
11494/2024 in Cr.M.P. No. 945/2025 deserves to be quashed.
9. He also submits that petitioners No. 2 is mother-in-law of
7
respondent No. 2, a senior citizen, who does not keep well on a day to
basis has also been roped in the crime by alleging absolute vague
allegations, which is no manner constitutes any offence under Section
85 of the BNS.
10. On the other hand, learned State counsel would submit that
considering the material available on record, it cannot be held that no
prima facie case against the petitioners is made out. He would further
submit that jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS is
extremely limited as FIR cannot be quashed particularly when there is
sufficient material available on record.
11. Learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 2/complainant,
would submit that there are serious allegations against the petitioners
for treating respondent No. 2 with cruelty. He would further submit that
the respondent No.2 had left her matrimonial home with the consent of
her in laws and her husband by taking a room on rent because during
rain season it was not possible to stay there and she went to her
matrimonial house only on Saturdays and Sundays. He submits that all
of a sudden when the respondent No.2 received a communication by
the Mahila Thana, Bilaspur that her husband has filed a complaint
against her for reconciliation in respect of some family dispute, she has
made application stating that she is ready and willing to live happily with
her husband and his family members but due to demand of dowry by
her in laws they are subjecting her to harassment and are refusing to
keep the respondent. He further submits that the petitioner No.1 in
Cr.M.P. No. 945/2025 ie. husband of respondent No.2 and his family
members are harassing her and was not providing proper food,
8
therefore she gave application before the concerned Mahila Police
Station where the police conducted counseling between the parties
however, the matter could not be resolved. On 28.10.2023, the
petitioners and his family members assaulted the respondent No.2 and
she had to taken shelter in the house of her aunt and after enquiry, the
concerned police station registered FIR and she was medically
examined. He submits that there is a specific allegation against the
petitioner for demand of Rs. 10,00,000/- from the respondent No.2. He
submits that in the charge sheet, each and every date has been
explained and on 02.01.2024, she was assaulted by the petitioner No. 3
& 4 and she informed the police and this itself shows a prima facie case
is made out against the petitioners. He would further submit that all
submissions raised on behalf of the petitioners relate to question of
fact, that can be considered during the course of trial and that cannot
be considered at this stage and that too in proceeding under Section
528 of the BNSS, as such, it is the case where the petition deserves to
be dismissed.
12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered
their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the
records with utmost circumspection.
13. In compliance of the Court’s order dated 10.03.2025, the matter
has been referred to the Medication Center for amicable settlement
between petitioner No.1/husband and respondent No. 2/wife, but both
the parties are not ready to compromise the matter and to settle their
dispute. Hence, the mediation has failed.
14. In the matter of Geeta Mehrotra and another v. State of Uttar
9
Pradesh and another, (2012) 10 SCC 741, the Honb’ble 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.
15. In the matter of K. Subba Rao and others v. State of Telangana
represented by its Secretary, Department of Home and others,
(2018) 14 SCC 452 the Hon’ble 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 ofences are made out.
16. In the matter of Rashmi Chopra v. State of Uttar Pradesh and
Another, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 620, 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 others,1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 that
criminal proceedings can be allowed to proceed only when a prima
facie ofence 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
10
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 (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 ofence 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
anyone 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
11husband 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…..”
17. The Hon’ble 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 @
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.
18. Very recently, the Hon’ble 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:
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-recognized 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
generalized and sweeping accusations
unsupported by concrete evidence or
particularized 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
12cannot 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.
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 ind 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 misuse provisions like
Section 498A of the IPC as a tool for husband
and his family by a wife. Making vague and
generalized allegations during matrimonial
conlicts, 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.
13
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 therotection
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:
“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
14and 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 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.”
19. In view of the aforesaid, the Hon’ble Apex Court quashed the
FIR, the charge-sheet and the consequential criminal proceedings
pending before the learned trial Court.
20. 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 all the petitioners including the
husband treated her with cruelty for not bringing sufficient dowry at the
time of marriage. There is no specific allegation regarding anyone of
the petitioners except common and general allegations against all the
15
petitioners that they have demanded cash amount.
21. 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, we are of the
considered opinion that in Cr.M.P. No. 882/2025, prima-facie no offence
under Sections 85,296,351(3), 115(2), 3(5) of BNS Act is made out for
prosecuting petitioner No.2-Sandhya Upadhyay, petitioner No.3 Ashish
Upadhyay and petitioner No.4-Smt. Shruti Upadhyay for the above-
stated ofences.
22. As a fallout and consequence of the above-stated legal analysis,
Criminal Case No.18631 of 2024 pending in the Court of Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) arising out of
Crime No. 66 of 2024 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana,
Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) for the ofences under Sections
85,296,351(3), 115(2), 3(5) of BNS Act is hereby quashed to the extent
of petitioner No.2-Sandhya Upadhyay, petitioner No.3-Ashish
Upadhyay and petitioner No.4-Smt. Shruti Upadhyay. Prosecution
against her husband petitioner No.3-Ashish Upadhyay shall continue.
Concerned trial Court will decide criminal case pending against
petitioner No.1-Rupendra Upadhyay strictly in accordance with law
without being influenced by any of these observations made
hereinabove.
23. In Cr.M.P. No. 945/2025, prima-facie no offence under Sections
Sections 296,115(2),351(2) and 3(5)of the BNS Act is made out for
prosecuting petitioner No.1- Ashish Upadhyay and petitioner No.2-
Shruti Kiran Mishra for the above-stated ofences.
16
24. As a fallout and consequence of the above-stated legal analysis,
Criminal Case No.11494 of 2024 pending in the Court of Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) arising out of
Crime No. 1447 of 2024 registered at Police Station Sarkanda,
Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) for the ofences under Sections 296,
115(2), 351(2), 3(5) of BNS Act is hereby quashed to the extent of
petitioner No.1-Ashish Upadhyay and petitioner No.2-Shruti Kiran
Mishra. Prosecution against her husband petitioner No.3-Rupendra
Upadhyay shall continue. Concerned trial Court will decide criminal
case pending against petitioner No.3-Rupendra Upadhyay strictly in
accordance with law without being influenced by any of these
observations made hereinabove.
25. The petitions under Section 528 of the BNSS are partly allowed
to the extent indicated hereinabove. No cost(s).
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Digitally signed
by SUGUNA
SUGUNA DUBEY
DUBEY Date:
2025.04.13
12:43:59 +0530