Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

24/04/2026

1. Heard Mr. Ashutosh Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No. 1 as well as Ms. Pooja Loniya, learned counsel for respondent No. 2.

2. By this petition under Section 528 of the BNSS, the petitioners have prayed for the following relief(s):

“I Quash and set aside the FIR bearing Crime No. 85/2021 dated 05.12.2021 in Crime No. 85/2021 for offence punishable under section 498-A, 34 of I.P.C. (Annexure-P/1)

II Quash and set aside the Final Report No. 11/2022 dated 01.02.2022 in Crime No. 85/2021 for the offence punishable under section 498-A, 34 of I.P.C. (Annexure- P/2)

III Quash and set aside the cognizance order dated 15.02.2022 in Crime No. 85/2021 (Annexure-P/3)

IV Quash and set aside the Order dated 08.08.2024 whereby learned Judicial Magistrate First Class has framed the charges U/S. 498-A R/W. 34 of I.P.C. (Annexure P/4)

V Quash the entire criminal proceedings arising out of Crime No. 85/2021 for offences punishable under section 498-A, 34 of I.P.C... pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur Distt - Bilaspur (C.G.) in Criminal Case no. 411/2022 against the petitioners.

VI Pass such order or further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deemed fit, proper and just in the fact and circumstances of the present case, to secure the ends of justice.”

3. The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioners are that the marriage of petitioner No.1 with respondent No.2 was solemnized on 30.01.2020 at Mohan Marriage Palace, Raipur. After the marriage, the parties initially lived together peacefully for about one month. Thereafter, respondent No.2 allegedly returned to her parental home and, upon resuming cohabitation, started creating disputes, particularly insisting that petitioner No.1 live separately from his aged parents.

4. It is the case of the petitioners that respondent No.2 frequently quarrelled with family members, avoided cohabitation, and was engaged in constant use of social media, including alleged objectionable conversations with unknown persons. When questioned, she allegedly threatened the petitioner with false criminal implications.

5. It is further alleged that respondent No.2, with mala fide intention, uploaded objectionable content on social media, causing mental harassment to the petitioners. Ultimately, she left the matrimonial home and returned to her parental house in July 2021. Thereafter, petitioner No.1 had earlier submitted a complaint on 30.10.2021 before Mahila Thana, Bilaspur. Subsequently, on 05.12.2021, respondent No.2 lodged an FIR at Mahila Thana, Bilaspur, alleging demand of dowry of ₹50 lakhs and a Honda City car, leading to registration of Crime No. 85/2021 under Sections 498-A and 34 IPC against the petitioners.

6. The charge sheet was filed on 01.02.2022, cognizance was taken on 15.02.2022, and charges were framed on 08.08.2024. It is stated that till date, no prosecution witnesses have been examined before the trial court. Hence, this petition.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned FIR, charge sheet, cognizance order, and the consequential order framing charges are ex facie illegal, arbitrary, and constitute a gross abuse of the process of law, having been initiated with an oblique motive to harass the petitioners. It was contended that even if the allegations in the FIR are taken at their face value, no offence under Section 498-A IPC is made out, as the essential ingredients of “cruelty” are completely absent. The FIR is vague, omnibus, and lacks specific particulars such as date, time, place, and specific role attributed to each petitioner. There is no allegation of wilful conduct of such gravity as is likely to drive the complainant to commit any act of mental or physical harm, nor any specific allegation of unlawful demand soon after marriage.

8. It was further submitted that t