Chhattisgarh HC Quashes 498A Proceedings Against In-Laws | Holds Omnibus Allegations Without Specific Role Cannot Sustain Criminal Trial
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Chhattisgarh Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru quashed criminal proceedings against two relatives in a matrimonial case involving allegations under Sections 498A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The bench concluded that general and unsubstantiated allegations could not justify a criminal trial against the relatives of the husband. The case involved accusations of cruelty and dowry demands, but the court found the complaint lacking in specificity and evidentiary support against the co-accused.
The court passed a common order after hearing two connected criminal miscellaneous petitions, arising from the same FIR and final report. It noted that while the complaint made specific claims against the husband, the same could not be said about his brother and sister-in-law. The bench stated that in the absence of clear and particularized accusations, it would be unjust to subject the co-accused to trial. Consequently, while the prosecution against the husband was allowed to proceed, the proceedings against his relatives were quashed, bringing relief to the petitioners in CRMP No. 36 of 2025.
The petitions were filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of FIR No. 726/2023 registered under Sections 498A and 34 of the IPC. The FIR was lodged at Police Station Kawardha, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh, by the wife of the primary accused. The final report was submitted to the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 07.01.2024, resulting in Criminal Case No. 899/2024.
Petitioners included the husband, his elder brotherand sister-in-law. It was alleged in the FIR that the husband had demanded dowry of Rs. 5 lakh and that the complainant had been subjected to cruelty. After the financial condition of the husband deteriorated, he shifted to his brother’s house. The wife alleged that after staying there for about a month, she was driven out and subsequently filed the FIR. She also alleged that the cruelty began within one year of marriage, which took place in 2010. However, the FIR was only lodged in 2023.
The petitioners contended that the FIR was filed with malicious intent after a gap of 13 years from the date of marriage. They also pointed out that there were no prior complaints or reports made during this extended period. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that general and vague allegations could not justify prosecution under Section 498A IPC, especially against distant relatives.
The respondents, represented by state counsel and counsel for the complainant, opposed the petitions and submitted that cruelty and dowry demands had occurred and that the FIR rightly included all three petitioners.
The bench recorded that the petitions arose from the same crime and involved identical facts and grounds, justifying a common order. It quoted the petitioners' prayer: "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant criminal miscellaneous petition... and quash the FIR No. 726/2023... and further it is also prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash the ongoing trial... in the interest of Justice."
The court examined the allegations in the FIR and found them to be general in nature as far as the co-accused relatives were concerned. "There is no specific allegation against the petitioners except common and general allegations against them," it stated. The court noted that the complaint lacked detail regarding dates, events, or any substantive evidence against the co-accused.
The court referred to the principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, stating in para 102: "We give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice... (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value... do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused... (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused..."
The court further recorded: "To attract Section 498A of the IPC, it must be established that cruelty or harassment to the wife to coerce her or cause bodily injury to herself or to commit suicide or the harassment was to compel her to fulfil illegal demand for dowry."
On examining the complaint, the bench observed: "In the complaint so made, the complainant has only made omnibus and general allegations against her husband, Jeth & Jethani without being full particulars about and date and place."
The court relied on precedents, including Sunder Babu v. State of Tamil Nadu and K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana, to affirm that casual references to relatives in the FIR without specific allegations warranted quashing of proceedings.
In reference to Geeta Mehrotra, the court observed: "Cognizance of matter against them for offence under Sections 498-A, 34 of the IPC would not be justified as cognizance would result in abuse of judicial process."
The court concluded: "We are of the considered opinion that prima-facie no offence under Section 498-A, 34 of the IPC is made out for prosecuting petitioner No.1-Toran Chandravanshi and petitioner No.2-Madhu in CRMP No.36/2025 for the above-stated offences and the prosecution against them... is covered by Category 1, 3 & 7 of para-102 of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal’s case... and as such, liable to be quashed."
The court further ordered: "FIR bearing No. 726/2023 registered at Police Station-Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh on 31/10/2023 for offence under Sections 498-A, 34 of the IPC, charge-sheet and consequential proceeding in Criminal Case No.899/2024 are hereby quashed to the extent of petitioner No.1-Toran Chandravanshi and petitioner No.2-Madhu in CRMP No.36/2025."
The prosecution against petitioner-Dilip Chandravanshi, the husband, was allowed to continue. The court recorded: "However, prosecution against the husband of respondent No.2 i.e. petitioner-Dilip Chandravanshi shall continue and be concluded expeditiously."
The court clarified: "It is made clear that all the observations made in this order are for the purpose of deciding the petition filed by the petitioners hereinabove and this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the matter."
The final decision stated: "Resultantly, the petition (CRMP No.3182/2024) filed by the petitioner/husband is dismissed and the petition (CRMP No.36/2025) so far it relates to petitioner No.1-Toran Chandravanshi and petitioner No.2-Madhu stands allowed."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Shivam Agrawal, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer; Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate
Case Title: Toran Chandravanshi and Others vs State of Chhattisgarh and Another
Neutral Citation: 2025: CGHC:25349-DB
Case Number: CRMP No. 36 of 2025 and CRMP No. 3182 of 2024
Bench: Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice; Justice Bibhu Datta Guru
[Read/Download order]
