Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(CHH) 10934
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
Ramesh Sinha, CJ, Bibhu Datta Guru, J
Saroj Sao – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
CRMP No. 873 of 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mayank Kumar
For the Respondents: Sakib Ahmed, Narendra Mehar
Criminal proceedings against relatives in matrimonial disputes under Section 498A IPC should be quashed if the FIR contains only general, omnibus allegations without specific, prima facie evidence of their involvement, preventing the abuse of the judicial process.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 498A - Cruelty by husband or relatives - Quashing of criminal proceedings - Court held that omnibus and general allegations without specific instances of involvement against in-laws warrant quashing of proceedings to prevent abuse of judicial process - (Paras 22, 23)
(B) Quashing of FIR - Duty of Court - In matrimonial disputes, courts should be careful and not rope in distant relatives based on vague or omnibus allegations; proceedings should proceed only where a prima facie offence is disclosed - (Paras 18, 19)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners sought quashment of criminal proceedings under Section 498A and 323/34 IPC pending in Raigarh, alleging that the FIR contained only vague and omnibus allegations against the husband's family members (mother-in-law, brother-in-law, and sister-in-law) following a matrimonial dispute.
Findings of Court:
The Court acknowledged that while specific allegations existed against the husband, the allegations against the other family members (applicants 1 to 3) were merely general and omnibus, lacking specific particulars, thus justifying quashing of proceedings against them under the parameters laid down in Bhajan Lal’s case.
Issues: Whether the criminal proceedings against the husband’s relatives should be quashed due to the lack of specific allegations of cruelty in the FIR arising from a matrimonial dispute.
Ratio Decidendi: Criminal proceedings should not be allowed to become an instrument of oppression; hence, where allegations against relatives in a matrimonial dispute are general and lack specific details of involvement, such proceedings qualify for quashing under Article 226 or Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of the court process.
Result: Petition partly allowed; proceedings against Applicants 1, 2, and 3 are quashed, while proceedings against the husband (Applicant 4) shall continue.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of allegations and procedural history of the matrimonial dispute. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 6) |
| 2. jurisdiction and scope of high court under section 482 crpc. (Para 5 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. defining and establishing cruelty under section 498a ipc. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. preventing abuse of process through vague allegations against relatives. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 5. application of law: quashing proceedings where allegations are omnibus. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
21/10/2024
1. Heard Mr. Mayank Kumar, learned counsel for the Applicants. Also heard Mr. Sakib Ahmed, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent No.1/State and Mr. Narendra Mehar, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
2. The Applicants have filed the instant petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashment of criminal proceedings pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raigarh in Criminal Case NO. 253/2024 along with FIR and charge-sheet arising out of Crime no. 15/2024.
3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the Petitioner No.1 is the mother-in-law of the complainant and resides at Pusaur, Raigarh (C.G.) while Petitioner No.2 Jamini Sao and Petitioner No. 3 Smt. Shanta Sao (wife of Petitioner No. 2) are brother- in-law and sister-in-law of the complainant. Petitioner no. 4 Dr. Anup Sao married Respondent no. 2 Smt. Kiran Sao in the year 2021 and are husband and wife. From the wedlock of the petitioner no. 4 and respondent no. 2 a child was born in the year 2022 namely Moksh. Petitioner no. 4 is Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery (BAMS) and currently helping his elder brother Petitioner no. 2 who is having small retail of paints and hardware in Pusaur. The Complainant/respondent No. 2 made a written complaint on 06/01/2024 on the allegations that the marriage of the complainant and petitioner no. 4 Dr. Anup Kumar Sao was solemnized on 07.02.2021 at Hotel Red Queen as per Hindu Rites and Customs. During ceremony her parents had given Streedhan in access of their capacity, in the last minute of marriage ceremony, the mother-in-law and husband also demanded a diamond ring. After the marriage, the complainant stayed with the in laws at Pusaur, Raigarh (C.G.). It is alleged that after seven days of marriage her mother-in-law, elder brother-in-law and sister-in-law started harassing her on small things and they used to provoke her husband to find fault in her work. She further alleged that mother-in- law forced her to bring a car from her father as a dowry. She also alleged that her husband is of bad character and used to go to Thailand as well as other places for enjoyment and in order to torture her he sent obscene photos with prostitutes so that she remain mentally tortured despite that she remained calm thinking that after a child is born things would become normal. However, her mother-in- law and sister-in-law used to harass her continuously. She further alleged that on 09.05.2021 her husband, mother-in-law, brother-in-law and sister in-law all the accused persons abused or assaulted her throughout the day demanding a car and in fear she also alleged that she locked herself in the room or threaten her to burn with a kerosene on the same day. When everyone was sleeping on the same night, she quietly left the house at around 3:00 A.M and went to Maternal-uncle home who stays in Pusaur. Subsequently, the Maternal-uncle of the complainant took her paternal home on the next day. Based on the Complaint of the respondent no. 2, FIR has been registered at Police Station Chakradharnagar, Raigarh (C.G.) on 06/01/2024 for offence under Section 498A , 323 R/w 34 of the IPC. After investigation, the police filed the charged sheet before the concerned Trial Court.
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. 1 to 3 a
