MANU/CG/0928/2022

Equivalent/Neutral Citation: 2023(2)C GLJ97, 2023(1)C rimes146(C hhatt.), I(2023)DMC 477C hhat.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

Cr.M.P. Nos. 1747 of 2018 and 422 of 2020
Decided On: 22.09.2022
Rajesh Kumar Mishra and Ors. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
N.K. Chandravanshi, J.
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Party-in-Person and Raza Ali, Advocate
For Respondents/Defendant: Manish Upadhyaya, Advocate, Wasim Miyan, PL and T.K.
Jha, Advocate
Case Category:
CRIMINAL MATTERS - MATTERS RELATING TO HARASSMENT, CRUELTY TO WOMAN FOR
DOWRY, DOWRY DEATH, EVE-TEASING, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ETC.
ORDER
N.K. Chandravanshi, J.
1. Since reliefs sought under both the petitions, filed under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity "Cr.P.C.") pertains to Criminal Case No.
36794/2018 [State of Chhattisgarh v. Rajesh Kumar Mishra & Others] pending in the
Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Durg, which arise from FIR/Crime No. 09/2018
registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Durg (C.G.) for the offence under Sections
498-A, 34 & 323 of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for
brevity, "Act, 1961") are of like nature, therefore, they are being heard analogously and
decided by this Common Order.
2. Cr.M.P. No. 1747/2018, arises out of aforesaid FIR, has been filed by the petitioners
for quashment of aforesaid FIR and consequent Criminal Case No. 36794/2018 pending
before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Durg whereas Cr.M.P. No. 422 of 2020 has
been preferred by the petitioners against an order dated 28.12.2019 passed by Second
Upper Sessions Judge, Durg in Criminal Revision No. 273/2019 upholding the order
dated 17.9.2019 passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Durg in aforesaid criminal
case, whereby application under Section 239/227 of the Cr.P.C. for getting discharge
from the offences under Sections 498-A, 34, 323 of the Indian Penal Code (for brevity
"IPC") and Section 4 of the Act, 1961 was dismissed.
3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that marriage of petitioner - Rajesh Kumar Mishra was
solemnized with complainant/respondent Dr. Sapna Rani Mishra on 30th April, 2015.
After few day of the marriage, petitioners started harassing her physically and mentally
in connection with demand of Gold and Rs. 10 lakh from her parents. The petitioners
also taunted about quality of articles bring by her from her parental home. They also
doubted upon her character. When petitioner - Smt. Snehlata Mishra (Mother-in-law of
complainant) ousted the respondent/complainant and her husband, then they were

22-12-2023 (Page 1 of 9) www.manupatra.com Bharti Vidyapeeth New law College

residing in the rented house at Nehru Nagar (West), Bhilai, District Durg, at that point
of time, mother of complainant had given huge amount to her husband, from which
various household articles were purchased, there also petitioner - Rajesh Kumar Mishra
subjected her to cruelty by abusing and assaulting her. On 21.12.2017 when
respondent/complainant was working at her work place, then also, her husband went
there and abused her, snatched her purse and broken her pen drive. On being complaint
by respondent/complainant, Police did not lodge FIR and gave intimation under Section
155 of the Cr.P.C., hence on the very next day i.e. 22.12.2017, respondent/complainant
made written complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Durg and based on that
complaint, present FIR bearing Crime No. 09/2018 was registered against the
petitioners.
4 . After usual investigation, aforesaid charge-sheet bearing Criminal Case No.
36794/2018 was filed by the police, hence, petitioners filed Cr.M.P. No. 1747/2018 for
quashment of FIR and consequent charge-sheet. After filing of charge-sheet, the
petitioners filed an application under Section 227/239 of the Cr.P.C. before learned
Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Durg for getting discharge, which was dismissed.
Against which Criminal Revision No. 273/2019 was filed by the petitioners, which was
also dismissed upholding the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Durg,
hence, petitioners (in Cr.M.P. No. 422 of 2020) have filed the instant petition under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for setting aside the aforesaid order passed by both the
courts below and allowing their application under Section 227/239 of the Cr.P.C.
5. It is not in dispute that petitioner-in-person i.e. Rajesh Kumar Mishra is husband of
respondent/complainant - Dr. Sapna Rani Mishra whereas Smt. Snehlata Mishra is
mother-in-law, Dr. Roshni Mishra is sister-in-law and Rakesh Mishra is brother-in-law
of complainant.
6 . The petitioner-in-person and learned counsel for petitioners No. 2 to 4, while
referring their written submissions, would submit that from the perusal of written
complaint and whole contents of charge-sheet, necessary/requisite ingredients of
framing charge under Section 4 of the Act, 1961 and Sections 498-A, 34 & 323 of the
IPC are missing, as it has not been mentioned in the aforesaid documents that any
demand of dowry was made by the petitioners at or before the marriage, as marriage
consideration. Respondent/complainant and her mother have stated in their police
statements that at the time of marriage, her mother has given various gifts to her in-
laws as per her capacity, they have also stated that when complainant and her husband
shifted at Nehru Nagar, Bhilai at rented house, at that time, mother of the complainant
had given various household articles, but they have not stated that any demand for
alleged articles had been made by the petitioners. It is further submitted that the
petitioners have never demanded any articles or gold or any amount from
respondent/complainant or her parents. Apart from that, mere demand of dowry is not
sufficient to bring home the aforesaid offences. It is next submitted that as per
complaint and statements of witnesses, after 15th November, 2015 complainant and her
husband were residing separately from other petitioners in the rented house, despite
that other petitioners i.e. mother-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law have been
falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that FIR lodged by
respondent/complainant is beyond the limitation period, not only this, earlier she had
made complaint against her husband only for the offence under Section 323 of the IPC,
therefore, police gave her intimation under Section 155 of the Cr.P.C., thereafter, she
had made written complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Durg exaggerating the
entire incident with malafide intention just to harass the petitioners. It is also submitted
that respondent/complainant was residing at her parental home much before lodging of

22-12-2023 (Page 2 of 9) www.manupatra.com Bharti Vidyapeeth New law College

the FIR, therefore, petitioner/husband filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu
Marriage Act in Family Court, Durg, thereafter, as a counter blast
respondent/complainant lodged present FIR just to score personal vengeance and to
take revenge by implicating all the family members of her husband. Learned counsel for
petitioners No. 2 to 4 further submits that allegations levelled against mother-in-law,
sister-in-law and brother-in-law are balled allegations by making the omnibus
statements, no specific events or role played by them, have been mentioned, despite
that learned trial Court as well as revisional Court have rejected their applications filed
under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C., hence, it is prayed that order impugned passed by
both the courts below may be set aside and considering the aforesaid facts, charge-
sheet filed by the police against the petitioners is liable to be quashed.
7 . Petitioner-in-person and learned counsel for petitioners No. 2 to 4 have placed
reliance upon the judgments rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Preeti
Gupta & another v. State of Jharkhand and another MANU/SC/0592/2010 : (2010) 7
SCC 667, Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam and others v. State of Bihar & others
MANU/SC/0163/2022 : (2022) 6 SCC 599, State of Himachal Pradesh v. Nikku Ram &
others MANU/SC/0008/1996 : (1995) 6 SCC 219, and various other judgments, which
they have cited in their written submissions, in support of their version.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State while supporting the charge-sheet
and impugned order, would submit that all the necessary ingredients are present
against the petitioner, due to which, the applications filed by the petitioners have been
dismissed by the trial Court, hence, the petitioners are not entitled to get any relief as
sought for by them.
9 . Learned counsel for the respondent/complainant would submit that it is settled
proposition of law that for framing charges, truthfulness of the facts narrated in the
charge-sheet is not to be considered, only it is to be seen that whether prima facie case
is made out or not. It is further submitted that by a long course of decisions rendered
by the Apex Court, it is settled that for the purpose of exercising power under Section
482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash FIR or complaint, the High Court would have to proceed
entirely on the basis of allegations made in the complaint and documents accompanying
the same, per se, it has no jurisdiction to examine the correctness or otherwise of the
allegations, as while exercising power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the court does
not function as a court of appeal or revision and mini trial is not supposed to be
conducted by the High Court. He placed reliance upon the judgments of the Supreme
Court in case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. v. Akhil Sharda & others & Sanjeet
Jaiswal v. State of Uttar Pradesh & others MANU/SC/0841/2022 : 2022 Live Law (SC)
594 (common order) and Tarun Jit Tejpal v. State of Goa MANU/SC/1121/2019 : LAWS
(SC) 2019 8 79 in support of his submissions.
1 0 . Heard petitioner-in-person, learned counsel for the parties, considered written
submissions, case laws cited therein and perused copy of charge-sheet and other
material available on record with utmost circumspection.
11. Before adverting to the factual matrix of the case, it would be appropriate to notice
Sections 2 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, which read as under:-
"2. Definition of 'dowry', in this act, 'dowry; means any property or valuable
security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly:
(a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage; or

22-12-2023 (Page 3 of 9) www.manupatra.com Bharti Vidyapeeth New law College

 (b) by the parents of either party to a marriage or by any other person,
to either party to the marriage or to any other person;
at or before or any time after the marriage in connection with the
marriage of said parties to whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat)
applies.
Explanation I.- [Omitted]
Explanation II.- The expression 'valuable security' has the same
meaning as in Sec. 30 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).
4. Penalty for demanding dowry.- if any person demands, directly or indirectly,
from the parents or other relatives or guardian of a bride or bridegroom, as the
case may be, any dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term
which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to two years and
with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees:
Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned
in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six
months."
12. Thus, "Dowry", means, any property given or agreed to be given by the parents of
a party to the marriage at the time of the marriage or before marriage or at any time
after the marriage in connection with the marriage.
13. In the case of Pawan Kumar & others v. State of Haryana MANU/SC/0104/1998 :
(1998) 3 SCC 309, Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the scope & ambit of
provisions of Act, 1961 observed in paragraph 16 as under:-
"16. ....... It is significant that Section 4 of the 1961 Act, was also amended by
means of Act 63 of 1984, under which it is an offence to demand dowry directly
or indirectly from the parents or other relatives or guardian of a bride. The
word "agreement" referred to in Section 2 has to be inferred on the facts and
circumstances of each case. The interpretation that the appellant seeks, that
conviction can only be if there is agreement for dowry, is misconceived. This
would be contrary to the mandate and object of the Act. "Dowry" definition is to
be interpreted with the other provisions of the Act including Section 3, which
refers to giving or taking dowry and Section 4 which deals with penalty for
demanding dowry, under the 1961 Act and the Indian Penal Code. This makes it
clear that even demand of dowry on other ingredients being satisfied is
punishable........."
1 4 . Observations made by the Supreme Court in case of Pawan Kumar (supra) was
further reiterated & followed by the Apex Court in case of State of A.P. v. Raj Gopal
Asawa & another MANU/SC/0235/2004 : (2004) 4 SCC 470. Thus, it is abundantly clear
that definition of "dowry" is not restricted to agreement or demand for payment of
dowry before and at the time of marriage but also includes demands made subsequent
to marriage.
15. In the instant case, as per FIR & statement of witnesses, after few days of marriage,
respondent/complainant was subjected to cruelty by saying that nothing was received in
the marriage. It is further alleged that she was also subjected to harassment physically
and mentally by demanding gold and money. She has also stated in her statement that

22-12-2023 (Page 4 of 9) www.manupatra.com Bharti Vidyapeeth New law College

when she was residing with her husband (petitioner No. 1) at Nehru Nagar, Bhilai, there
also her husband beaten her and threatened her by demanding dowry and by saying
that otherwise he will divorce her.
16. Although, in the instant case, it is not alleged that before or at the time of marriage
any demand of dowry was made by the husband or his family members but it has been
alleged in the FIR and statements of witnesses that demand of dowry was made after
the marriage and as has been discussed above that definition of 'dowry' under the Act,
1961 also includes demands made subsequent to marriage. Therefore, in view of dictum
given by the Apex Court, contentions made on behalf of the petitioners that, the
provisions contained in Section 4 of Act, 1961 does not attract in the instant case, has
no force in the eye of law.
17. So far as allegation of offences under Sections 498-A & 323 of the IPC against the
petitioners are concerned, considering the increase of such type of offences implicating
all the relatives of husband only on the basis of vague and omnibus type statement,
Hon'ble Supreme Court has cautioned the Courts to consider such type of cases very
carefully and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with the
matrimonial cases.
18. In case of Neelu Chopra and another v. Bharti MANU/SC/1733/2009 : (2009) 10
SCC 184, their Lordships of the Supreme Court held as under:-
"9. In order to lodge a proper compliant, mere mention of the sections and the
language of those sections is not be all and end of the matter. What is required
to be brought to the notice of the court is the particulars of the offence
committed by each and every accused and the role played by each and every
accused in committing of that offence.
10. When we see the complaint, the complaint is sadly vague. It does not show
as to which accused has committed what offence and what is the exact role
played by these appellants in the commission of offence. There could be said
something against Rajesh, as the allegations are made against him more
precisely but he is no more and has already expired. Under such circumstances,
it would be an abuse of process of law to allow the prosecution to continue
against the aged parents of Rajesh, the present appellants herein on the basis
of vague and general complaint which is silent about the precise acts of the
appellants."
19. In case of Preeti Gupta and another v. State of Jharkhand and another (supra), their
Lordships of the Supreme Court observed as under:-
"26. This court in Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. & Others v. Mohd. Sharaful
Haque & Another MANU/SC/0932/2004 : (2005) 1 SCC 122 observed thus:-
"It would be an abuse of process of the court to allow any action which
would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise
of the powers, court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it
finds that initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process
of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the
ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the
court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to
be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what
the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even

22-12-2023 (Page 5 of 9) www.manupatra.com Bharti Vidyapeeth New law College

 if the allegations are accepted in toto."
35. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty
and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a herculean task in majority of
these complaints. The tendency of implicating husband and all his immediate
relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of criminal
trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely
careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic
realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The
allegations of harassment of husband's close relations who had been living in
different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the
complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The
allegations of the complaint are required to be scrutinized with great care and
circumspection."
20. In the case of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar MANU/SC/0559/2014 : (2014) 8 SCC
273, Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:-
"4. There is phenomenal increase in matrimonial disputes in recent years. The
institution of marriage is greatly revered in this country. Section 498-A of the
IPC was introduced with avowed object to combat the menace of harassment to
a woman at the hands of her husband and his relatives. The fact that Section
498-A is a cognizable and non-bailable offence has lent it a dubious place of
pride amongst the provisions that are used as weapons rather than shield by
disgruntled wives. The simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his
relatives arrested under this provision. In a quite number of cases, bed-ridden
grand-fathers and grand-mothers of the husbands, their sisters living abroad
for decades are arrested."
21. In Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P. MANU/SC/0895/2012 : (2012) 10 SCC 741, their
Lordships of the Supreme Court has observed as under:-
20. It would be relevant at this stage to take note of an apt observation of this
Court recorded in the matter of G.V. Rao vs. L.H.V. Prasad & Ors. reported in
MANU/SC/3156/2000 : (2000) 3 SCC 693 wherein also in a matrimonial
dispute, this Court had held that the High Court should have quashed the
complaint arising out of a matrimonial dispute wherein all family members had
been roped into the matrimonial litigation which was quashed and set aside.
Their Lordships observed therein with which we entirely agree that:
"there has been an outburst of matrimonial dispute in recent times.
Marriage is a sacred ceremony, main purpose of which is to enable the
young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little
matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious
proportions resulting in heinous crimes in which elders of the family
are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled
and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being
arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many reasons which
need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation
so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate the
disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a
court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that
process the parties lose their "young" days in chasing their cases in

22-12-2023 (Page 6 of 9) www.manupatra.com Bharti Vidyapeeth New law College

 different courts."
The view taken by the judges in this matter was that the courts would not
encourage such disputes.
22. In the case of K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana MANU/SC/0880/2018 : (2018)
14 SCC 452, Hon'ble Supreme Court also observed as under:-
"6............. The courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant
relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The
relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus
allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made
out."
23. Recently, in case of Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam & others v. State of Bihar and
others MANU/SC/0163/2022 : (2022) 6 SCC 599, their Lordships of the Supreme Court
has held as under:-
"18. The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this court has at
numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of section 498A IPC and
the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial
disputes, without analysing the long term ramifications of a trial on the
complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said
judgments that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in
the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of
the process of law. Therefore, this court by way of its judgments has warned
the courts from proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband
when no prima facie case is made out against them."
2 2 . Therefore, upon consideration of the relevant circumstances and in the
absence of any specific role attributed to the accused appellants, it would be
unjust if the Appellants are forced to go through the tribulations of a trial, i.e.,
general and omnibus allegations cannot manifest in a situation where the
relatives of the complainant's husband are forced to undergo trial. It has been
highlighted by this court in varied instances, that a criminal trial leading to an
eventual acquittal also inflicts severe scars upon the accused, and such an
exercise must therefore be discouraged.
24. Applying the ratio of law laid down by their Lordships of Supreme Court in the
aforecited cases (supra), in the facts of the present case, it is apparent that in the
written complaint dated 22.12.2017 made by respondent/complainant and her police
statement, she has made general & omnibus type statement that after few days of
marriage all the petitioners started harassing her physically and mentally to bring gold
and Rs. 10 lakhs. It has also been alleged that in-laws of the respondent/complainant
taunted her about the articles brought by her from her parental home and they also
doubted her character.
25. Allegations levelled against the petitioner No. 2, 3 & 4 [in Cr.M.P. No. 1747/2018]
are totally general and vague, no specific role of those petitioners have been stated in
the FIR and statements of witnesses enclosed with the charge-sheet, in respect of
alleged harassment meted out against the respondent/complainant, to alleged meet
unlawful demand for property or valuable security from her or her parents.
2 6 . As per statements of respondent/complainant and her mother recorded under

22-12-2023 (Page 7 of 9) www.manupatra.com Bharti Vidyapeeth New law College

Section 161 Cr.P.C., petitioner Smt. Snehlata Mishra (mother-in-law of complainant)
had not only ousted her son Rajesh Kumar Mishra (petitioner) and
respondent/complainant from her house but she herself had dropped some of the
articles received by respondent/complainant at the time of marriage, at her parental
home. These facts shows that due to quarrelsome relation between husband & wife,
other family members had fed-up, therefore, despite being mother, petitioner No. 2
herself had ousted both of them and dropped articles of respondent/complainant, at her
parental home.
27. It is also evident from the statement of respondent/complainant and her mother
itself, that since 15.11.2015 she alongwith her husband were residing separately from
other petitioners, at Nehru Nagar, Bhilai and from 30.10.2016 i.e. after delivery of child
by her, she was residing at her parental home, thus since 15.11.2015 till making of
written complaint dated 22.12.2017 on the basis of which FIR was lodged, she has not
resided with petitioner No. 2 to 4, despite that she has implicated them in this case.
Whereas, there are no other witnesses, except complainant/wife and her mother which
would demonstrate involvement of petitioner No. 2 to 4 in alleged crime in question.
28. Thus, since no specific act of petitioner No. 2, 3 & 4 has been attributed in the FIR
and evidence enclosed with the charge-sheet and they have been implicated in crime in
question only on the basis of vague, general and omnibus type statements of
complainant/wife and her mother, with intent to harass them, as they are relatives of
husband of respondent/wife, therefore, allowing the continuation of criminal case
against them would amount to abuse of process of law and thus they deserve to be
discharged. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that learned both the Court below,
without considering aforesaid facts and dictum given by the Apex Court, have dismissed
the application under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. filed by petitioner No. 2 to 4, is
unsustainable and the same deserves to be allowed in respect of them.
29. Main allegation in the instant case is against the petitioner/husband, against whom
it has been alleged in the written complaint dated 22.12.2017/FIR and statements of the
witnesses that, he subjected cruelty to respondent/complainant, physically and mentally
and also assaulted her at her matrimonial home, her work place and even in her
parental home also, to meet unlawful demand for property or valuable security from
complainant/wife or her parents and when the petitioner - Rajesh Kumar Mishra &
respondent/complainant were living separately in rented house at Nehru Nagar, Bhilai,
then her mother had given Rs. 2 lakh to petitioner/husband by taking loan, from which
he had purchased household articles, there also he has subjected her to physical and
mental cruelty to meet unlawful demand for property.
30. In the matter of Niharika Infrastructure Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra &
others MANU/SC/0272/2021, their Lordships of the Supreme Court while considering
the various judgments rendered by the Apex Court has observed that exercise of the
inherent powers to quash the criminal proceedings is called for only in a case where the
charge-sheet does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. In
such a situation, it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the
inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code, but while exercising the jurisdiction
under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court would not embark upon any enquiry as
to whether question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of the
evidence the accusation would not be sustained.
31. In case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal MANU/SC/0115/1992 : 1992 Supp (1)
SCC 335, their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that: courts have been cautioned

22-12-2023 (Page 8 of 9) www.manupatra.com Bharti Vidyapeeth New law College

that the power of quashing should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection
and that too in the rarest of rare cases.
32. Very recently, in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & another v. Akhil Sharda &
others, (supra) their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that in exercise of power
under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., no mini trial can be conducted and in this regard court
cannot get into appreciation of evidence of the particular case being considered.
33. Reverting to the facts of instant case marriage of respondent/wife and petitioner -
Rajesh Kumar Mishra was solemnized on 30.4.2015 and after few days, she was
subjected to cruelty by petitioner/husband to meet unlawful demand for property and
she made written complaint dated 22.12.2017 to the Superintendent of Police, Durg, as
on being complaint made by her on 21.12.2017, police had given her intimation under
Section 155 of the Cr.P.C. and after making written complaint dated 22.12.2017, her
matter was referred to Investigative Units for Crime Against Women (IUCAW) for
conciliation and when conciliation proceedings failed, thereafter, FIR was lodged on
4.6.2018, therefore, contention raised by petitioner in person, that the case is beyond
limitation, is unsustainable, as respondent/complainant had made written complaint on
22.12.2017 itself, therefore, limitation would be seen on the basis of that date.
34. Likewise contention raised by petitioner in person that, since on 21.12.2017 police
gave intimation under Section 155 of the Cr.P.C. to respondent/complainant in respect
of alleged incident dated 21.12.2017, therefore, she had made written complaint
exaggerating the facts mentioning false allegation that she has been subjected to cruelty
on demand of property/dowry, is also not sustainable at this stage, as it can be
examined and considered by the trial Court on the basis of evidence adduced by the
parties. Therefore, considering the facts and material available in charge-sheet and the
principles of law laid down by the Apex Court in aforecited judgments, it is quite vivid
that there is sufficient material against petitioner No. 1 Rajesh Kumar Mishra to proceed
with the charge-sheet for the offences under Section 4 of the Act, 1961 and Sections
498-A and 323 of the IPC.
35. Thus, upon consideration of the entire facts and material of the instant case and
observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforecited cases, FIR No. 09/2018 as
well as charge-sheet arising out of the FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings
pertaining to Criminal Case No. 36794/2018 (State of Chhattisgarh v. Rajesh Kumar
Mishra & others) are quashed against petitioner No. 2, 3 & 4 namely Smt. Snehlata
Mishra, Dr. Roshni Mishra & Rakesh Mishra, respectively. But prayer made by petitioner
No. 1 - Rajesh Kumar Mishra in this regard is declined.
36. Resultantly, Cr.M.P. No. 1747 of 2018 so far as it relates to petitioner Nos. 2, 3 & 4
are concerned, is allowed and in respect of petitioner No. 1 - Rajesh Kumar Mishra, the
same is dismissed. Since Cr.M.P. No. 1747 of 2018 is being allowed in respect of Dr.
Roshni Mishra & Rakesh Kumar Mishra also and charge-sheet is being quashed against
them, the result of which is their discharge from all the charges, therefore, Cr.M.P. No.
422 of 2020 filed by them, is also allowed.
© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

22-12-2023 (Page 9 of 9) www.manupatra.com Bharti Vidyapeeth New law College