Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jayesh Shriwas vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 August, 2025
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:17164
1 WA-2264-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA YADAV
ON THE 8 th OF AUGUST, 2025
WRIT APPEAL No. 2264 of 2025
JAYESH SHRIWAS AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Yash Sharma - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Vivek Khedkar - Additional Advocate General/Senior Advocate
with Shri Sohit Mishra - Government Advocate for the respondents/State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Anand Pathak
1. The present appeal under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha
Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 is preferred by the
appellants being crestfallen by the order dated 16-06-2025 passed by learned
Single Judge in Writ Petition No.19777 of 2025 whereby the petition preferred by
the appellants seeking quashment of FIR registered at crime No.72/2023 at Police
Station Mahila Thana Padav District Gwalior for offence under Sections 498-A,
294, 506, 34 of IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and charge-
sheet, has been dismissed.
2 . Matter pertains to domestic dispute wherein the wife/complainant
lodged the FIR against the appellants levelling the allegations of dowry demand
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:17164
2 WA-2264-2025
and ill-treatment. Marriage of appellant No.1 and complainant has been
solemnized on 19-11-2018 at Gwalior according to Hindu Rites and Rituals and
in the marriage parents of complainant gave dowry according to their ability. In
the present case, petitioner No.1 is husband, petitioner No.2 - father-in-law and
petitioner No.3 is mother-in-law of the complainant/wife and as per the
allegations, after marriage, petitioners started demanding dowry of Rs.5 lacs and
one four wheeler and on non fulfillment of the said demand, they used to harass
and beat her. On the complaint of respondent No.4/complainant, FIR was
registered, case was investigated and thereafter charge-sheet was filed before the
competent Court of jurisdiction. Petitioners preferred writ petition before learned
Writ Court seeking quashment of FIR as well as charge-sheet but suffered
adversely, therefore, they are before this Court.
3. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that only on the
basis of omnibus allegations petitioners are suffering criminal trial while
petitioners had never raised the dowry demand. According to counsel for the
petitioners no specific time, date and place have been mentioned by respondent
No.4 for levelling the allegations of mental and physical harassment due to non
fulfillment of demand of dowry and criminal intimidation. Thus, the allegations
levelled by respondent No.4 appear to be vague and ambiguous and on the basis
of such allegations, petitioners cannot be permitted to face trial.
4. It is further submitted that complainant has given different version in
relation to removing her from the matrimonial house as in the proceeding under
Section 125 of Cr.P.C. she states that she was removed from the matrimonial
house in February, 2021 whereas in the FIR she narrated different date of her
removal in December, 2022. Therefore, the FIR registered against the petitioners
is doubtful. In order to harass the petitioners, present case has been got registered
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:17164
3 WA-2264-2025
by the complainant. To bolster his submission reliance has been placed over the
judgments of Apex Court in the case of Preeti Gupta Vs. State of Jharkhand,
(2010) 7 SCC 667 and Geeta Mehrotra and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
another, (2012) 10 SCC 741.
5 . Learned Writ Court did not consider the controversy in correct
perspective and concluded against the petitioners.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents/State opposed the submissions and
while supporting the order passed by learned Writ Court submits that in the case
in hand, charge-sheet has been filed and matter is under trial, therefore, the trial
will unfold the truth. Petitioners have to prove their innocence before the trial
Court by leading their evidence. Thus, prayed for dismissal of this writ appeal.
7. Heard.
8. This is a case where appellants are taking exception to the order passed
by learned Writ Court whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellants as
petitioners got dismissed. They were before learned Writ Court seeking
quashment of the proceedings initiated against them for offence under Section
498-A, 294, 506, 34 of IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. From
the contents of FIR itself, it appears that these are not omnibus allegations but the
allegations prima facie levelled in specific terms whereby date, time and place of
incident are mentioned. Conduct of appellants have also been specifically
mentioned by the complainant.
9. Even otherwise, FIR is not Encyclopedia and it is only meant to set the
ball of criminal law into motion. Statement of complainant also indicates
implicative nature of allegation.
10. Appellants raised the point that the statement recorded before the Court
purportedly in the proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., contains some
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:17164
4 WA-2264-2025
factual anomaly/contradiction because she says that she was removed from her
matrimonial household in February, 2021 whereas in FIR she mentioned that she
was removed in December, 2022. Such factual aberration according to counsel
for the appellants renders the case of prosecution doubtful. However, it is not so
because proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is different than the present
case where appellant is facing regular trial for the offences referred above. Even
otherwise, one factual aberration cannot be taken into consideration to the extent
wherein whole trial will be vitiated.
11. Apart from that, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Taramani
Parakh Vs. State of M.P. & others, 2015 Cr.L.J. (SC) 2031 has held that quashing
of a charge is an exception to the rule of continuous prosecution. Where the
offence is even broadly satisfied, the Court should be more inclined to permit
continuation of prosecution rather than its quashing at the initial stage. The Court
is not expected to marshal the record with a view to decide admissibility and
reliability of the documents or record but is an opinion formed prima facie .
12. Looking to the nature of allegations, it is apposite that parties must
lead their evidence so that their part of truth may come to fore. The
judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioners move in different
factual realm.
13. Considering the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the
parties as well as the legal position and further looking to the limited scope of
interference in writ appellate jurisdiction, no case for interference is made out.
Appellants have to prove their innocence by leading their evidence before the trial
Court. Accordingly, the order passed by learned Writ Court is hereby affirmed
and the writ appeal preferred by the appellants is hereby dismissed.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:17164
5 WA-2264-2025
14. Appeal stands dismissed. It is made clear that discussion is for the
purpose of deciding this appeal. Trial Judge shall decide the case on its own
merit.
(ANAND PATHAK) (PUSHPENDRA YADAV)
JUDGE JUDGE
Anil*
