Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 19082
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ramesh Sinha, CJ, Bibhu Datta Guru, J
Prem Narayan Sinha – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
CRMP No. 237 of 2021
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Amit Soni
For the Respondents: Malay Jain, Samir Singh
The High Court may exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings against a husband's relatives when the FIR contains only omnibus, vague, and general allegations of cruelty, lacking specific instances of involvement, as such continuation constitutes an abuse of the process of law.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure - Section 482 - Quashing of FIR - Principles regarding exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process of court. (Paras 12, 13, 23)
(B) Indian Penal Code - Section 498A/34 - Offence of cruelty - Requirement of specific allegations - Omnibus and general allegations against relatives of husband do not suffice for criminal prosecution. (Paras 16, 25, 26)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners sought the quashing of an FIR and charge-sheet alleging dowry demand and cruelty. The petitioners (husband and his relatives) contended the allegations were vague and filed as a counterblast to the husband's divorce petition. The State and Complainant argued that prima facie material existed and disputed facts should be tested at trial.
Findings of Court:
The Court held that vague and omnibus allegations against the husband's relatives, lacking specific details of dates, places, or specific acts of cruelty, do not constitute an offence under Section 498A. Quashing proceedings against the relatives (petitioners 2-6) was necessary to prevent abuse of legal process, while the trial against the husband (petitioner 1) was permitted to continue.
Issues: Whether the FIR and criminal proceedings against the husband's relatives disclose a prima facie case under Section 498A/34 IPC and whether the court should exercise its powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash them.
Ratio Decidendi: Criminal proceedings against relatives of a husband in matrimonial disputes should not be permitted when allegations are generic, sweeping, and lack specific roles or instances of involvement, as such proceedings amount to an abuse of judicial process. Result : Petition partly allowed; FIR quashed against petitioners 2-6.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the petition for quashing fir under section 482 crpc. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. summary of rival contentions by petitioners, state, and complainant. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 3. scope of section 482 crpc and guidelines from bhajan lal's case. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. interpretation of 'cruelty' under section 498a ipc. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 5. judicial precedent on quashing cases against distant relatives with vague allegations. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 6. application of principles to facts resulting in partial quashing of fir. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
1. Heard Mr. Amit Soni, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Malay Jain, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for respondent No.1/State and Mr. Samir Singh, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 2/complainant.
2. The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the CrPC with following prayer:-
“It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant petition and quash the First Information Report bearing Crime No. 504 of 2019 and charge-sheet dated 10.01.2020 for commission of an offence under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and that no further action shall be taken against the petitioners on the basis of the FIR dated 18.11.2019 bearing Crime No. 504 of 2019, in the interest of justice.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the the marriage of petitioner No. 1/husband was solemnized with respondent No.2/complainant on 04.02.2018 in accordance with Hindu Rites and Customs. The petitioners No. 2 & 3 are brother-in-law, petitioner No. 4 is the mother-in-law and petitioners No. 5 & 6 are sister-in-law of the respondent No. 2/complainant. It is alleged by the respondent No.2/complainant that she was subject to harassment for demand of dowry by the petitioners as a result of which the FIR bearing Crime No. 504 of 2019 was registered against the petitioners at Police Station Dhamtari, District Dhamtari for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 498(A) of the IPC and upon investigation Police filed a charge-sheet dated 10.01.2020 before the competent Court.
4. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondent No. 2/complainant left the matrimonial house on 20.02.2019 and has been living at her maternal home in Dhamtari since, then after getting tired of making the efforts of calling respondent No.2/complainant back to matrimonial home, the petitioner No. 1/husband had moved an application for grant of decree of divorce under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on 09.04.2019, which is pending before the Family Court, Raipur (C.G.). He also submits that the respondent No. 2/complainant also made an appearance before the concerned Court for the first time on 14.11.2019.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that thereafter, on 18.11.2019, the respondent No. 2/complainant preferred a written complaint before the concerning Police Station and allegation against petitioners is in respect of demand of dowry and of harassment in pursuance of FIR bearing Crime No. 504 of 2019 was registered at Police Station Dhamtari. On the basis of above FIR, investigation has been done and charge-sheet has been filed.
6. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that an application under Section 437 of the CrPC was preferred by the petitioners before the trial Court, whereby the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhamtari (C.G.), was kind enough to allow the bail application of the petitioners. He also contended that the aforesaid facts and circumstances patently makes evident that the petitioners are innocent and have not demanded any dowry as alleged by the respondent No.2/complainant. The petitioners have been implicated merely on the basis of bald allegation which seems to suggest the anxiety
