Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

1. Heard Dr. Arham Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Ms. Shubhangi Varshney, learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 / complainant.

2. The present petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayer :-

“(i). To kindly be pleased to quash the FIR dated 15-09-2025 bearing Crime No. 59/2025 registered at P.S. Mahila Thana, District Durg (C.G) against the petitioners, for the offences under section 498-A, 34 of the IPC

(ii). To kindly be pleased to quash the impugned final report bearing no. 66/2025 dated 30-10-2025 filed against the petitioners under sections 498-A, 34 of the IPC in Crime No. 59/2025 (Annexure P-1)

(iii)To kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 31-10-2025 (Annexure P-2) whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg (C.G) has taken cognizance of the impugned chargesheet and registered the impugned criminal proceedings as Criminal Case No.RCC/34782/2025

(iv). of To kindly be pleased to quash the entire criminal the Criminal Case No. proceedings RCC/34782/2025 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg (C.G)

(v). And to kindly grant any other relief to the petitioners as this Hon'ble court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the present case”

3. The present case arises out of matrimonial dispute between Petitioner No.1 (husband) and Respondent No.2 (wife), who were married on 22.02.2015 as per Hindu rites. As per the prosecution case, the respondent No.2 stayed at the matrimonial home only for a short period and thereafter resided mostly at her parental home to complete her education from 2015 to 2019, visiting occasionally. She later took up employment as a Guest Teacher at Chhatarpur and subsequently shifted to Datia, where she resided separately, while the petitioner could only stay with her intermittently due to his family obligations. Differences arose between the parties on account of living arrangements, and it is alleged that in April 2022, she left the matrimonial home with jewellery and valuables and refused to return despite reconciliation efforts. Subsequently, the petitioner No.1 filed a divorce petition on 16.05.2025, which is pending, and thereafter the respondent No.2 lodged a complaint on 23.07.2025, leading to registration of FIR dated 15.09.2025 under Sections 498-A and 34 IPC and filing of the impugned charge-sheet.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned FIR and consequential proceedings are nothing but a gross abuse of the process of law, as the same have been initiated with mala fide intent after the petitioner No.1 filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking dissolution of marriage. A bare perusal of the FIR would reveal that the respondent No.2 never resided at her matrimonial home for any substantial period and lived separately for most of the marriage due to her educational and professional pursuits, thereby rendering the allegations of cruelty inherently improbable. The FIR is conspicuously silent on any specific instances of physical or mental harassment and contains only vague, omnibus allegations, particularly against the aged parents (petitioner Nos.2 and 3), without attributing any specific role to them. It is further submitted that the allegations are concocted, contradictory to admitted facts, and have been levelledonly to harass and pressurize the petitioners.

5. He further submitted that in compliance of the Court’s order dated05.02.2026 the present case is referred to the mediation centre, but the mediation is failed between them.

6. He would rely upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the matters of Geeta Mehrotra and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another¹(2012) 10 SCC 741, Preeti Gupta and another v. State of Jharkhand and another²(2010) 7 SCC 667, Swapnil v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2014) 13 SCC 5