2026:CGHC:19285 NAFR Digitally signed by BABLU B R A A B JE L N U DRA R BH AJ A E N N A D R R K A AR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR BHANARKARDate:

2026.04.28 10:15:56 +0530 CRMP No. 3384 of 2025

1 - Anshul Deodas S/o Shankarlal Deodas Aged About 37 Years At- Tripathi Nursing Home, Street No. 3 New Shanti Nagar, Geetanjali Colony, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, C.G.

2 - Shankarlal Deodas S/o Late Banjulal Deodas Aged About 74 Years At- Tripathi Nursing Home, Street No. 3 New Shanti Nagar, Geetanjali Colony, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, C.G.

3 - Ankita Deodas D/o Shankarlal Deodas Aged About 31 Years At- Tripathi Nursing Home, Street No. 3 New Shanti Nagar, Geetanjali Colony, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, C.G.

... Petitioner(s)

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through P/s Mahila Thana, Durg, C.G.

2 - Pragya Deodas W/o Anshul Deodas Aged About 36 Years At- Near Shubhash School, PS Mohan Nagar, Durg, District Durg, C.G.

... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Lukesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate through video conferencing For Respondent : Ms.Vaishali Mahilang, Deputy Government No.1-State Advocate For Respondent : Ms.Pushpa Dwivedi, Advocate No.2 Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge

Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

27/04/2026

1. Heard Mr.Lukesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners through video conferencing as well Ms.Vaishali Mahilang, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1 and Ms.Pushpa Dwivedi, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for respondent No.2.

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

“It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the FIR No. 66/25 of Mahila Thana, Durg, C.G., dated 10.10.2025 being investigated for the offences under section 85 and 3(5) of the BNS so far ”

3. Facts of the case are that Petitioner No. 1 is the husband, Petitioner No. 2 is the elderly father-in-law, and Petitioner No. 3 is the unmarried sister-in-law employed in a reputed post at Raipur. The marriage between Petitioner No. 1 and the respondent wife was solemnized on 07.06.2024 according to Buddhist rituals, without any dowry. The FIR lodged by the respondent / wife contains only vague and omnibus allegations of cruelty and dowry demand, without specifying any dates, incidents, or particular acts. No specific allegations are made against Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, and the only allegation against the husband is general marital discord. The respondent has also attempted to falsely implicate distant relatives, including an 83-year-old grandmother (Nani Saas). During preliminary inquiry, allegations against such relatives were found to be untrue and no FIR was registered against them.

4. The respondent / wife and Petitioner No. 1 were residing separately in a rented accommodation, away from the other petitioners. Hence, allegations against the father-in-law and sister- in-law are baseless and motivated. Even if the FIR is taken at face value, it does not disclose the ingredients of cruelty under the relevant law. Prior to the FIR, counselling proceedings took place, in which no allegations of dowry harassment were made. The respondent wife allegedly misbehaved with the petitioner’s family, insisted on living separately, and threatened to implicate them in false cases. The husband had lodged complaints with police authorities regarding such conduct. Due to ongoing disputes, the husband started living separately. The father-in-law resides with Petitioner No. 3. The respondent wife allegedly locked the father- in-law’s self-acquired property. The petitioners submit that they have not subjected the respondent to cruelty; rather, they are victims of false and motivated allegations.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a bare perusal of the impugned FIR clearly demonstrates that no prima facie case is made out against the petitioners