Chattisgarh High Court
Sunil Bhuwal vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 30 April, 2025
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2025:CGHC:19625-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 1134 of 2025
1 - Sunil Bhuwal S/o Pankaj Kumar Bhuwal Aged About 37 Years R/o-
House No. 19, Phari Chowk, Krishna Nagar Colony, Gudhiyari, Raipur,
District- Raipur (C.G.)
2 - Smt. Pratima Bhuwal W/o Pankaj Kumar Bhuwal Aged About 57
Years R/o- House No. 19, Phari Chowk, Krishna Nagar Colony,
Gudhiyari, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
3 - Pankaj Kumar Bhuwal S/o Late Shri Ram Khilawan Singh Bhuwal
Aged About 62 Years R/o- House No. 19, Phari Chowk, Krishna Nagar
Colony, Gudhiyari, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Station House Officer, P.S.-
Bemetara, District- Bemetara (C.G.)
2 - Swati Bhuwal W/o Sunil Bhuwal Aged About 37 Years R/o- Ward No.
11, Gasti Chowk, Bemetara, District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sachin Nidhi, Advocate
For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. Swajeet Singh Ubeja, PL
For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Samir Singh, Advocate
2
Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
30/04/2025
Heard Mr. Sachin Nidhi, learned counsel for the petitioners as
well as Mr. Swajeet Singh Ubeja, learned Panel Lawyer, for the
State/Respondent and Mr. Samir Singh, learned counsel for
Respondent No. 2/complainant.
2. The present petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. has been filed
by the petitioners with the following prayer :-
“(i) It is respectfully prayed that the dated
06.10.2022 registered at PS Bemetara, District
Bemetara (CG) for the offence under Sections
498-A,323,34 IPC in Crime No. 539/2022 lodged
against the petitioners may be quashed.
(ii). It is respectfully prayed that the charge sheet
dated 30.11.2022 filed before the learned Court
of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bemetara,
District Bemetara (CG) for the offence under
Setions 498-A,323,34 IPC having charge sheets
No,. 720/2022 filed against the petitioners may
be quashed.
(iii) the criminal case NO. 153/2023 initiated
against the petitioners before the learned court
of JMFC, Bemetara, District Bemetara for the
offence under Sections 498-A, 323 and 34 IPC
pending for consideration may be quashed.
(iv) The charges framed against the petitioners
by the learned court of JMFC, Bemetara, District
Bemetara vide order dated 29.06.2024 for the
offence under Sections 498-A, 323 and 34 IPC
3may be quashed.
(v) the charges framed against the petitioners
has been challenged before the Court of learned
First Additional Sessions Judge, Bemetara,
District Bemetara (CG) in Cr. R. No. 30/2024 has
also been dismissed vide order dated
02.01.2025 for the offence under Sections 498-
A, 323 and 34 of the IPC may be quashed.
(vi) the Hon’ble Court may kindly quash the
whole proceedings pending before the learned
court of JMFC, Bemetara, in Criminal Case No.
153/2023 arising out of Crime No. 539/2022 for
the offence under Sections 498-A,323,34 IPC
between State of Chhattisgarh Vs. Sunil Bhuwal
and Others.”
3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that petitioner No.1 is the
husband of respondent No.2/complainant and petitioner No. 2 & 3 are
father-in-law and mother-in-law. The petitioner No.1/Sunil Bhuwal got
married with respondent No.2/Swati Bhuwal on 30.11.2020 as per
Hindu rites and rituals. It is the case of prosecution that after15 days of
her marriage, her in-laws subjected her to harassment for demand of
dowry. On 06.10.2022, the respondent No.2 lodged the impugned FIR
and in pursuance thereof, the police filed the impugned charge sheet
bearing No. 720/2022 for the offences under Sections 498-A,323 and
34 of the IPC and the criminal proceedings are going on before the
Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bemetara (CG).
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that being aggrieved
from the frivolous and baseless complaint being lodged by the
respondent No.2, the petitioners have preferred this petition for
quashing/setting aside the FIR registered at PS Bemtara, District
4
Bemetara, the impugned charge sheet No. 720/2022 filed for the
offences under Sections 498-A,323,34 of the IPC, the impugned order
dated 29.06.2024 taking cognizance of the offences by the trial Court
and the entire criminal proceedings that are undergoing in Criminal
Case No.153/2023 State of Chhattisgarh Vs. Sunil Bhuwal and Others
before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bemetra.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned
FIR at PS Bemetara, District Bemetara, CG, the charge sheet filed
before the learned JMFC, Bemetara and the charge framed against the
petitioners which has been challenged before the learned First
Additional Sessions Judge, Bemetara, District Bemetara in Cr.R. No.
30/2024 and dismissed 2vide order dated 02.01.2025 are bad, illegal
and untenable in the eyes of law and therefore they are liable to be
quashed/set aside. It is further submitted that the respondent
No.2/complainant has made baseless and vague allegations against
the petitioners only to harass them and it is based on concocted cooked
up stories. He submits that the respondent No.2/complainant is forcing
the petitioner No.1 to live separately from his parents and is subjecting
him to mental cruelty. It is submitted that the petitioners have been
alleged in the aforesaid offence with the ulterior motive and earlier also
a complaint was made against the petitioners before the women
commission and after counseling the petitioner got ready to reside with
the petitioner/husband and his family members.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further states that an act to
constitute offence, 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
5
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, Bemetara (C.G.) as Criminal Case No. 153/2023 deserves
to be quashed. He has placed his reliance in the judgment of the Apex
Court in the matter of Dara Lakshmi Nrayana and Others Vs. State of
Telangana and Another 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3682, which reads as
under:
“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 498-A of the IPC as a tool for unleashing
personal vendetta against the husband and his family
by a wife. Making vague and generalized 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
6to 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.
7. He would further rely upon the judgments of the Apex Court in
the matter of State of Haryana Vs Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604,
wherein it has been held as under:
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
extra-ordinary 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 channelized 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.
2. Where the allegations in the First Information
Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the
F.l.R. 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
7
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 F.I.R. 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.
7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended
with malafide 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.”
8. Similarly, in the matter of Geeta Mehrotra and another v. State
of Uttar Pradesh and another (2012) 10 SCC 741,it has been held
that casual reference to the family members 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, 504,506 and 304-B of the IPC would not be justified as cognizance
would result in abuse of judicial process.
9. He has further relied upon the matter of Rashmi Chopra v. State
of Uttar Pradesh and Another (2019) SCC OnLine SC 620, wherein it
has been held by the Apex Court relying upon the principle of law laid
8
down in State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal and others,1992 Supp (1)
SCC 335 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 (supra).
10. He has also relied upon the judgments of this Court in
Satyanarayan Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Station
House Officer and Another (Cr.M.P. No. 2496/2023, 2024 SC OnLine
Chh 13906); Manoj Jaiswal and Others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh,
Through Officer In charge Police Station Sarangarh and Another
Cr.M.P. No. 2785 of 2024,2024 SCC OnLine Chh 13540); Suraj
Prakash Sahu and Others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh Through
Station House Officer and Others (Cr.M.P. No. 2531 of 2023, 2024
SCC OnLine Chh 13314).
11. 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
9
sufficient material available on record to put the accused persons to
trial. He would rely upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of
Taramani Parakh v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others (2015) 11
SCC 260, to buttress his submission that allegation of cruelty is
question of fact to be established during trial, as such, the petition
deserves to be dismissed.
12. 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 because she was
subjected to cruelty for demand of dowry by her in laws and they are
subjecting her to harassment. He further submits 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 B.N.S.S. as
all ingredients of the aforesaid offences are available to put the
petitioners to trial, as such, it is the case where the petition deserves to
be dismissed.
13. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered
their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the
records with utmost circumspection.
14. In compliance of the Court’s order dated 01.04.2025, the matter
has been referred to the Mediation 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.
10
15. In the matter of Geeta Mehrotra and another v. State of Uttar
Pradesh and another, (2012) 10 SCC 741, the Hon’ble Apex 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.
16. 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.
17. 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
11
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 (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 498-A 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,
12brother, 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…..”
18. 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.
19. 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 cannot be
dragged into criminal prosecution and the same
13would 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 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
14
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:
“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.”
15
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.”
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. Having noticed the legal position qua quashing the FIR and
charge sheet, the question would be whether taking the contents of the
FIR and charge-sheet as it is, offence under Sections 498-A, 323 and
34 IPC is made out against the petitioners?
21. It is the case of the prosecution that marriage of the complainant
with the petitioner No. 1 was solemnized on 30.11.2022 as per their
customary rites and rituals and after 15 days of marriage, the
respondent No. 2 has lodged the FIR alleging therein that she was
16
subjected to cruelty by her husband and his family members. 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 demand of dowry. There is no specific
allegation regarding anyone of the petitioners except common and
general allegations against all the petitioners that they have demanded
cash amount.
22. 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 prima-facie no offence under Sections 498-A,
323 and 34 IPC is made out for prosecuting petitioner No.2-Smt. Pratim
Bhuwal and petitioner No.3 Pankaj Kumar Bhuwal for the above-stated
ofences 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.
23. As a fallout and consequence of the above-stated legal analysis
and also in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Criminal Case
No.153/2023 pending before the learned trial court arising out of
CrimeNo. 539/2022 registered at Police Station, Bemetara for the
offence under Sections 498-A, 323 and 34 of the IPC is hereby
quashed to the extent of Petitioner No. 2 Smt. Pratima Bhuwal and
Petitioner No.3 Pankaj Kumar Bhuwal. The prosecution against her
husband i.e. petitioner No. 1- Sunil Bhuwal, S/o Pankaj Kumar Bhuwal
17
shall continue.
24. It is made clear that all the observations made in this order are
for the purpose of deciding the petition filed by the petitioners
hereinabove and this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of
the matter and concerned trial Court will decide criminal case pending
against Sunil Bhuval strictly in accordance with law without being
influenced by any of these observations made hereinabove.
25. The present petition under Section 528 of BNSS is allowed to
the extent indicated hereinabove.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Digitally signed
by SUGUNA
SUGUNA DUBEY
DUBEY Date:
2025.05.03
11:29:12 +0530
[ad_1]
Source link