Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ramesh Sinha, J.
Smt. Piyushlata Thawait and ors. - Petitioners
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh Thro’ District Magistrate, Raipur and ors. – Respondents
Cr.M.P.No.1302 of 2017
Decided On : 12-12-2023
CRIMINAL CASE - Quashing of Proceedings - Sec.498A, Sec.34 IPC, Sec.406, Sec.354 IPC, Sec.3, 4 Dowry Prohibition Act; Sec. 4, 5 Tonhi Pratinishedh Act - [SUMMARY]
Fact of the Case:
A woman filed a written report alleging harassment by her husband and in-laws, including demands for dowry and physical abuse. The accused petitioned to quash the charges, arguing lack of specific allegations and absence of ingredients for the offenses.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the scope of interference in charge-sheet filed by the police and considered 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. The court found that the allegations against the in-laws were general and unspecific, with no specific instances of their involvement in the offenses.
Issues: The court considered whether the allegations made in the FIR and charge-sheet constituted a prima facie case against the accused for the offenses under Sec.498A, Sec.34 IPC, Sec.406, Sec.354 IPC, Sec.3, 4 Dowry Prohibition Act; Sec. 4, 5 Tonhi Pratinishedh Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied legal principles from various Supreme Court judgments to determine that the allegations against the in-laws were general and unspecific, and no specific instances of their involvement in the offenses were made. The court also considered the lack of entrustment of property and absence of specific allegations regarding the accused's involvement.
Final Decision: The court quashed the proceedings against the in-laws for the offenses under Sec.498A, Sec.34 IPC, Sec.406, Sec.354 IPC, Sec.3, 4 Dowry Prohibition Act; Sec. 4, 5 Tonhi Pratinishedh Act, while allowing the prosecution against the husband to continue.
The petitioners, who are the in-laws of the complainant (mother-in-law, father-in-law, sister-in-law, brother-in-law), filed a petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash proceedings in Criminal Case No. 4724/2017 and the charge-sheet in Crime No. 15/2016 at PS Mahila Thana, Raipur, for offenses under Sections 498A/34, 406, 354 IPC, Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, and Sections 4/5 Chhattisgarh Tonahi Pratadna Nivaran Act. [10000108460001] (!)
The complainant alleged that after her marriage on 10.02.2015, her husband and mother-in-law harassed her for insufficient dowry, demanded mobile phone and cash, physically assaulted her multiple times including during pregnancy, and continued torture in Raipur and Bilaspur; counseling failed, leading to the FIR. [10000108460002]
Statements under Section 161 CrPC of the complainant, her family, and witnesses were recorded, after which charge-sheet was filed, and trial is pending. [10000108460002]
Petitioners argued: no direct/specific allegations against them, only general/omnibus ones; no ingredients for offenses like 498A (no specific cruelty/dowry demand), 406 (no entrustment), 354, Dowry Act, or Tonahi Act; divorce already granted. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) [10000108460003]
State argued: charge-sheet based on investigation shows prima facie material sufficient for trial; limited jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC. [10000108460004]
Complainant argued: serious allegations of cruelty and dowry demand (mobile/cash) attracting 406 IPC. [10000108460005]
Scope of interference under Section 482 CrPC or Article 226/227: exercised sparingly to prevent abuse of process or secure justice; applicable where allegations do not prima facie constitute offense, are absurd/improbable, or lack specific evidence against accused. [10000108460007][10000108460008][10000108460009] (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) [10000108460010]
For Section 498A IPC: requires married woman subjected to cruelty (wilful conduct causing injury/suicide risk or harassment for unlawful property demand) by husband or his relatives (blood/marriage/adoption); general allegations insufficient. [10000108460012] (!) (!) (!) [10000108460013] (!) (!) (!) [10000108460014]
Complaint/FIR statements: specific beating/demands on husband; only general taunts about insufficient dowry/cash against in-laws, no specific instances/particulars of their role in cruelty/harassment. [10000108460021][10000108460022] (!) [10000108460020]
No offense under Section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act (demanding dowry from bride's relatives): demand linked to husband; "dowry" requires connection to marriage, not general financial demands. [10000108460024] (!) [10000108460025] (!) (!) (!) [10000108460026][10000108460027][10000108460028]
No offense under Section 406 IPC (criminal breach of trust): requires entrustment/dominion over property followed by dishonest misappropriation; no such allegation/evidence against petitioners. [10000108460030][10000108460031] (!) [10000108460032][10000108460033][10000108460034][10000108460035][10000108460036][10000108460037][10000108460038][10000108460039][10000108460040]
No offense under Section 354 IPC (outraging modesty): no specific allegation of such act. [10000108460041]
No offense under Sections 4/5 Chhattisgarh Tonahi Pratadna Nivaran Act (identifying/harassing "Tonahi"): no allegation of identifying complainant as Tonahi. [10000108460042] (!) [10000108460043]
Proceedings quashed against petitioners (in-laws) as allegations general/unspecific, no prima facie case (covered by categories 1, 3, 7 for quashing); prosecution against husband (Alok Thawait) to continue; observations not to influence trial. [10000108460029][10000108460043][10000108460044]
Petition allowed to that extent; certified copy to trial court. [10000108460045][10000108460046]
ORDER :
1. Heard Mr. Bhupendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr.Avinash K. Mishra, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1/State and Mr.Dinesh Yadav, learned counsel holding the brief of Mr.Shivendu Pandya, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
2. By way of this petition under Section 482 CrPC, the petitioners have prayed for following relief :
3. Brief facts, necessary for disposal of this case, are that a written report was lodged by respondent No.2 i.e. complainant Smt.Smita Mahobia W/o. Shri Alok Thawait at Police Station Mahila Thana, Raipur that her marriage was solemnized on 10.02.2015 at Raipur with Shri Alok Thawait and she had given adequate dowry including air conditioner, sofa, dining table etc. and also given gold and silver ornaments, but immediately after the marriage, her husband and mother-in-law i.e. petitioner No.1 started harassing her by saying that she had not brought adequate dowry and cash amount and she was subjected to cruelty with demand of mobile phone, cash etc., even she was beaten by her husband many times. She has also stated that even when she was carrying pregnancy she was again beaten by her husband and mother-in-law in connection with taking dowry. She has also stated that the said torture and harassment was continued at Raipur and Bilaspur also. Even, the complainant tried to settle her matrimonial dispute with the help of Sakhi Counsling Center, but the counseling was also failed and ultimately the complainant had lodged the written report at Police Station Mahila Thana, Raipur where the offence as aforementioned was registered. During the course of investigation, statements under Section 161 CrPC of Smt.Smita Mahobia (complainant), Smt.Shail Mahobia (mother of the complainant), Kailash Chandra Mahobia, Sweta Mahobia and other witnesses and also independent witnesses namely Pramendra Singh and Dr.Pravina Mishra have been recorded. After completion of usual investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the jurisdictional criminal Court and now the matter is pending before the competent jurisdictional criminal Court against the present petitioners where they are facing trial.
4. Mr.Bhupendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners submits as under:-
(ii) That, taking contents of charge-sheet and document appended along with charge-sheet as it is, aforesaid offences are not made out against the petitioners as direct allegation is against husband and not against the petitioners herein, as such, in absence of specific allegation and in absence of ingredient of demand of dowry and cruelty, prosecution against the petitioners deserves to be quashed. To bolster his submission, he would rely upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the matters of Geeta Mehrotra and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2012) 10 SCC 741, Preeti Gupta and another v. State of Jharkhand and another, (2010) 7 SCC 667, Swapnil v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2014) 13 SCC 567 and Rashmi Chopra v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 620 (Para-24).
(iii) That, prima facie no offence under Section 4
The court emphasized the need for specific and particularized allegations to establish a prima facie case for the offenses, and the lack of entrustment of property and specific allegations regarding ....
The court emphasized that general allegations which are not specific in nature regarding harassment caused to a wife for dowry demands cannot be the basis of framing a charge for the offence punishab....
Specific allegations are essential to establish a prima facie case under IPC Sections 406 and 498-A; general allegations are insufficient for prosecution.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
