Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

21/10/2024

1. Heard Mr. B.P. Singh, learned counsel for the Applicants. Also heard Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent No.1/State and Mr. Jitendra Shukla, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

2. The Applicants have filed the instant petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashment of FIR No. 0150/2022 dated 16/08/2022 registered at Mahila Thana for the offence punishable under Section 498-A r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant and the Applicant No.1 are Hindu and belongs to the same Community. The applicant no.1 and complainant/respondent no. 2 have performed a love marriage before the Arya Samaj on 02/11/2020. As the said marriage was not accepted by the father of the complainant and thus he suggested to perform marriage with all the rituals and rights and then it will be accepted, then the marriage between the complainant and Applicant No.1 was solemnized on 12/11/2020 at Phaphadih, Raipur, according to Hindu rites and rituals, in presence of family members, relatives and friends of both sides. The said marriage was arranged marriage. All expenses of the marriage was born by the Appilcant No.1. After the said marriage the said Informant cohabited and resided with the Applicant No.1 and his family at her matrimonial home at Shankar Nagar, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. No issue born out of the said wedlock. On 02/03/2021, to the shock of the applicants, the parents and the family members of the complainant has arrived their house and after intimidating them have asked the complainant to pack her things and without there being any reason have abused and beaten the applicant no. 3 and 4 and have left the matrimonial house. Thereafter on 24/06/2022, Applicant no. 1 has gone to the house of complainant and after clearing all the misunderstandings and the complainant returned happily to the matrimonial house. Again after 1 month i.e. on 27/07/2022, she had called her brother and went to police station and lodged a complaint. Subsequently, Applicant No. 1 was called and after conciliation they were sent back home. And since the she had not returned to the matrimonial house.

On 29/07/2022, the respondent no. 2/complainant has filed a written complaint before the Mahila Thana Raipur, for the offences u/s 498A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, where in the police officials have called Applicant no1 for counseling but the same has failed as the complainant/respondent no. 2 was not willing to mediate things.

4. Admittedly, the dispute between the parties is matrimonial dispute and the mediation proceedings in the present case has failed.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicant No. 2 to

3 are parents of applicant No.1 and applicant no. 3 & 4 are sister and brother of applicant No.1 and omnibus allegations have been leveled against them. He prays for quashment of proceedings against the applicants. He submits that the police authority has not complied with the provisions of Sections 41, 41-A of the Cr.P.C. which is in violation of the direction of Arnesh Kumar v.

State of Bihar, 2014 (8) SCC 273.

6. Mr. Jitendra Shukla, learned counsel for respondent No.2/complainant, would submit that there is specific allegation against the applicants that they have started harassing the complainant physically and mentally, as such, petition deserves to be dismissed.

7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection.

8. In the matter of Pepsi Foods Ltd. and another v. Special Judicial Magistrate and others1, the Supreme Court has held that the accused can approach the High Court either under Section 482 of the CrPC or under Article 227 of the Constitution of

1 (1998) 5 SCC 749

India to have the proceeding quashed against him when the complaint does not make out any case against him.

9. The Supreme Cour