2024:CGHC:42078 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 965 of 2023

1 - Pankaj Kumar Bharti S/o Vijaychand Bharti Aged About 29 Years R/o Raghauli, Post Maurboj, P.S. Ghosi, Tehsil And District Mau, U.P.

2 - Kamla Devi W/o Vijaychandra Aged About 50 Years R/o Raghauli, Post Maurboj, P.S. Ghosi, Tehsil And District Mau, U.P.

3 - Vijaychandra S/o Lt. Ramnath Aged About 55 Years R/o Raghauli, Post Maurboj, P.S. Ghosi, Tehsil And District Mau, U.P.

4 - Sarita Devi W/o Ashwani Kumar Aged About 32 Years R/o Indara, Tehsil And Block Kopaganj, District Mau, U.P.

... Petitioners Versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer P.S. Mahila Thana, Sector 6, Bhilai, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

2 - Smt. Ruchi Kumari W/o Pankaj Kumar Bharti Aged About 29 Years R/o Near Sheetla Mandir, Ward No.34, Across The Nahar, Camp 02, Bhilai Chawani, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Aman Pandey, Advocate.

For State/Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Swajeet Uboweja, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Nitesh Jain, Advocate holding the brief of Ms. Anmol Sharma, Advocate.

Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge

Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

24/10/2024

1. By this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the Cr.P.C.), the petitioner seeks quashing of the charge sheet arising out of FIR bearing Crime No. 112 of 2022, registered against the petitioners on 22.11.2022 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station, Mahila Thana, Durg.

2. The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioners are marriage between the petitioner No.1 and the respondent No.2 (complainant) was solemnized on 07.11.2019 at Uttar Pradesh as as per Hindu rituals. Petitioner No.2 is mother-in-law, petitioner No.3 is father in law and petitioner No.4 is sister in law of the respondent No.2. Out of the said wedlock, a daughter was born on 13.09.2020. Since the relationship between the husband and wife was not cordial, an FIR was lodged by the respondent No. 2 on 22.11.2022 alleging that the petitioners had demanded dowry from the respondent No. 2.

3. Mr. Aman Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the petitioner No. 3 and 4 never resided with the respondent No. 2 but still they have been implicated in this case only with intent to harass them. The petitioners tried their best to console the respondent No.2 in order to save the relation between the parties however, since the respondent No.2 categorically refused to come back to her matrimonial home, the petitioner No.1 preferred a petition under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking decree of divorce. Only after getting a notice from the Court in relation to the divorce petition, the FIR was lodged wherein the entire family members have been roped. Moreover, a bare perusal of the FIR would indicate that general and omnibus allegations were levelled against all the petitioners and the allegations therein, if assumed to be true, does not constitute an offence under the alleged sections. Therefore, the petitioners are constrained to approach this Hon'ble Court by way of present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C for quashing of FIR bearing No. 112 of 2022 registered at PS Mahila Thana, District Durg, under Sections 498A and 34 of IPC.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Swajeet Uboweja, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State submits that after registration of the FIR the police started their investigation and recorded statement under section 161 of Cr.P.C. of the witnesses. From the evidence collected by the police it is crystal clear that the present petitioners had committed the offence of harassment and physical and mental torture on the complainant for giving dowry and also prove the quarrel between the family members in the hospital. The present FIR clearly indicates the commission of cognizable offence by the petitioners