Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice

10 .02 .2025

1. Heard Mr. Amarnath Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for respondent No. 1/State and Mr. Ali Afzaal Mirza, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 2.

2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayers:

“(1) Quash FIR in Crime No. 745 of 2024 and subsequent charge-sheet No. 570 of 2024 registered at Police Station Ambikapur, District Ambikapur (Sarguja) (C.G.), under Sections 294, 323 and 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code in relation to the present petitioner.

(2) Pass any other order in view of the special facts and circumstances mentioned in the present petition, in the interest of justice.”

3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that as per the FIR, respondent No. 2 made a complaint stating that her marriage was solemnized on

05.02.2023 as per rites and rituals at Ambikapur District Surguja (C.G.) with petitioner No. 1/Aquib Javed. It is alleged that the respondent No. 2 has been deceived into marriage and that after one month from their marriage the husband (petitioner No. 1), mother-in-law (petitioner No. 2), father-in-law (petitioner No. 3), and brother-in-law (petitioner No. 4) started to harass her for dowry. Further, it is alleged that the petitioners asked the respondent No. 2 for some money which was required to pay the rent and security to the landlord for a new rented house in Mumbai. The petitioners asked for Rs. 65,000/- and Rs. 30,000/-, and also took gold and other household items worth approximately Rs. 1,20,000/-. When the respondent No. 2 told them that she does not have the money, they pressured her further, stating that she has not brought a car or cash as dowry with herself, and demanded at least Rs. 3,00,000/- from her father for the house. The respondent No. 2, further alleges that she tolerated their demands and, out of her own earnings, gave the petitioners Rs. 65,000/- and Rs. 30,000/-, a total of approximately Rs. 5,00,000/-. However, they kept asking her for more money, which caused her mental distress. Further, it has been alleged that the petitioner No. 1/husband has been involved in an illicit relation with a woman, namely, Shweta Aparna who is a co-worker of him. And when she protested, her husband beat her, but she still endured. Later, the respondent No. 2 has stated in the FIR that in April 2024, respondent No. 2 went to her in-laws village in Gazipur, Uttar Pradesh, along with petitioner No. 1/husband to celebrate Eid. When she asked her mother-in-law/petitioner No. 2 for her ring, the mother-in-law refused and insulted the respondent No. 2. Her husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law, and brother-in-law, all physically assaulted her, using abusive language. The respondent No. 2 alleges that the petitioner No. 1/husband even beat her at Banaras Airport while taking her back to Mumbai, but she endured all this. It is alleged that after the marriage, the husband and in-laws continued to demand money every month, ranging from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 20,000/-. She had to arrange these amounts by asking her father. Despite this, the petitioners continued to harass her for dowry.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations made in the FIR are manipulative and has been exaggerated by the complainant in order to implicate the petitioners in the false case. The petitioners would like to bring on record certain facts which are germane for proper adjudication of this case. He also submits that the petitioner No.1/husband and the respondent No. 2/complainant both are working couple. The petitioner No. 1 is posted as Manager in the Union Bank of India regional branch Mumbai. The respondent No. 2/complainant is a senior software developer engaged in 63 Moons Technologies Limited Company in Mumbai and deriving salary of Rs.14,00,000 (fourteen lakhs) per annum. Initially the couple used to reside at a 1BHK apartment i