Chattisgarh High Court
Vaibhav Pandey vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 1 August, 2025
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2025:CGHC:37872-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 2123 of 2024
1 - Vaibhav Pandey S/o Balendu Dhar Pandey Aged About 31 Years
Digitally
signed by
Permanent R/o S-29/431, B-13, Mehta Nagar Colony, Varanasi, (U.P.)
SHOAIB
SHOAIB ANWAR
ANWAR Date:
2025.08.01
17:17:36
221003
+0530
--- Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Sho Ps Mahila Thana, District
Ambikapur (Surguja), (C.G.)
2 - Smt. Priya Pandey W/o Vaibhav Pandey Aged About 28 Years R/o
A-1106, Casa Estella, Lodha Palava City Phase 2, Dombivali East,
421204 (Complainant)
--- Respondent(s)
2
CRMP No. 2131 of 2024
1 – Balendu Dhar Pandey S/o Chandra Shekhar Pandey Aged About
63 Years Permanent Residence At S-29/431, B- 13, Mehta Nagar
Colony, Varanasi, U.P. 221003.
2 – Dr. Durgeshwari Pandey W/o Balendu Dhar Pandey Aged About
56 Years R/o Permanent Residence At S-29/431, B- 13, Mehta Nagar
Colony, Varanasi, U.P. 221003.
3 – Meghana Pandey W/o Stephen Caringan Aged About 36 Years
R/o Flat No. 302, D- Wing Panchratna Apartment, Fatima Nagar
Pune- 411013
—Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 – State Of Chhattisgarh Through S H O P.S. Mahila Thana, District
Ambikapur (Surguja), Chhattisgarh.
2 – Smt. Priya Pandey W/o Vaibhav Pandey Aged About 28 Years R/o
A-1106, Casa Estella, Lodha Palava City Phase 2, Dombivali East,
421204.
— Respondent(s)
3
(Cause title taken from CIS)
For Petitioner(s) :Shri Aman Saxena, Advocate
For Respondent/State :Shri Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer
For Respondent No. 2 :Mrs. Meena Shastri, Advocate.
Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
01.08.2025
1. Heard Shri Aman Saxema learned counsel for the petitioners,
Mr. Hariom Rai, learned Panel Lawyer for the
State/respondent No. 1 as well as Mrs Meena Shastri learned
counsel for the respondent No. 2.
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, are that on 08.07.2024 a complaint was filed
by respondent No.2 Smt. Priya, who is the wife of petitioner
Vaibhav Pandey; daughter-in-law of Balendu Dhar Pandey and
Dr. Durgeshwari Pandey and Sister in law of Meghana Pandey,
before the Officer In-Charge, Police Station Mahila Thana,
District Ambikapur (Surguja) (C.G.) alleging that the marriage
4
between Vaibhav Pandey (husband) in Cr.M.P. No. 2123/2024
and respondent No. 2 was registered on 30.08.2022. After
marriage her husband with her in-laws started demanding
dowry in an illegal manner and started harassing her mentally
and physically, and also tried to kill her thereafter, she lodged
the FIR and on the basis of that complaint an offence has been
registered against the petitioners under Section 498A and 506
of the IPC.
4. It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that
petitioner in No. 2123/2024 is husband of respondent No.2.
that the Court marriage between the complainant/
respondent No.2- Smt. Priya Pandey (wife) and petitioner-
Vaibhav Pandey (husband) was solemnized on 30.08.2022 at
Shree Ram Janki Mandir, Varanasi. He further stated that the
petitioners Balendu Dhar Pandey (father-in-law), Dr.
Durgeshwari Pandey (mother-in- law) and Meghana Pandey
(sister-in-law) have never resided with the respondent
No.2/complainant and have had no occasion to harass the
respondent No.2, but have been implicated in the commission
of the present offence merely with an intent to harass the
petitioner No.1 and his whole family members to extort huge
5
alimony amount from them. On the basis of complaint made
by the complainant/wife, the FIR No. 0026/2024 was
registered against the petitioners. Hence, the present
proceedings against the petitioner in CrMP No. 2123/2024
who is husband and petitioner No. 1, 2 & 3 in CrMP
No.2131/2024 who are in-laws of respondent No. 2 be
quashed.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for
respondents submit that the matter was referred to the
Mediation Center and maintenance was granted to the wife
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
1
(2012) 10 SCC 741
6
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 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
2
(2018) 14 SCC 452
3
2019 SCC OnLine SC 620
4
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
7
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) 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
8sequence 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 @
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:
9
“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.
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
10dowry 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
misuse provisions like Section 498A of the IPC as a tool
for unleashing personal vendetta against the husband
11and 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.
12
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.”
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
13
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.”
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
14
petitioners treated her with cruelty and demanded 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 and 506 of the
IPC is made out for prosecuting (petitioner No. 1 – Balendu
Dhar Pandey, petitioner No.2 -Dr. Durgeshwari Pandey
and Meghana Pandey in Cr.M.P No. 2131/2024) for the
above-stated offences.
14. As a fallout and consequence of the above-stated legal
analysis, FIR No.0026/2024, registered at Police Station-
Mahina Thana, District Ambikapur (Surguja) (C.G.) for offence
under Sections 498 A and 506 of the IPC is hereby quashed to
the extent of (petitioner No. 1 – Balendu Dhar Pandey,
petitioner No.2 -Dr. Durgeshwari Pandey and Meghana
Pandey in Cr.M.P No. 2131/2024).
15
15. However, Prosecution against husband (Vaibhav Pandey)
Petitioner in Cr.M.P. No. 2123/2024 shall continue.
Concerned trial Court will decide criminal case pending
against petitioner – Vaibhav Pandey strictly in accordance
with law without being influenced by any of these
observations made hereinabove.
16. Ergo, the Cr.M.P No. 2123/2024 under Section 528 of the BNSS
is dismissed and the Cr.M.P No. 2131/2024 is allowed to the
extent indicated hereinabove. No cost(s).
Sd/- Sd/-
(Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Shoaib/Gowri