[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sanju Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:65866
1 MCRC-50037-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B. P. SHARMA
ON THE 11th OF DECEMBER, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 50037 of 2024
SANJU YADAV AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Alkesh Kumar Mishra - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Vijay Shukla - Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1/State.
ORDER
This petition, under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973) has been preferred by petitioners seeking quashing of
FIR bearing Crime No.197/2024 dated 23.03.2024 registered at Police
Station-Gohalpur, District-Jabalpur (MP) for offences punishable under
Sections 498-A, 323, 506 of IPC as well as Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961, and also for quashing the all other consequential
proceedings of arising therefrom i.e. criminal case bearing RCT
No.2956/2024 (arising out of FIR bearing Crime No.197/2024) pending
for adjudication before Trial Court at Jabalpur.
2. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that
complainant lodged a report at concerned police station, alleging that her
marriage was solemnized with Sanju Yadav (petitioner No.1) on
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:65866
2 MCRC-50037-2024
18.02.2023 at Jabalpur, as per Hindu rites and customs. After the
marriage, her husband, along with his family members (petitioners
herein), began harassing her both physically and mentally, and also
demanded a dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- for purchasing of a Swift car. Upon
her denial of demand, she was subjected to physical assault by her
husband. Based on report, FIR bearing Crime No. 197/2024 was
registered against the petitioners.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are
innocent and have been falsely implicated in the matter. They have not
committed any offence. It is submitted that after the marriage of
complainant with petitioner No.1, they have been residing separately
from the family members of petitioner No.1. It is further submitted that
complainant possesses two mobile phones and three SIM cards, and she
was constantly talking and chatting through WhatsApp with another
person. In this regard, when complainant was asked not to communicate
with the other person, she made a false and frivolous complaint against
the petitioners. It is also submitted that no case is made out against the
petitioners, as neither they did harass the complainant nor there was any
demand for dowry. Therefore, it is prayed that FIR as well as all
consequential proceedings against the petitioners may be quashed.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the
prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners and has prayed for
dismissal of the petition.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:65866
3 MCRC-50037-2024
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available in the case diary.
6. In case of Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Aryan Singh and
others reported in (2023) 18 SCC 399, Hon'ble the Supreme Court has
observed that as per the cardinal principle of law, at the stage of
discharge and/or quashing of the criminal proceedings, while exercising
the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court is not required to
conduct a mini trial. For the purpose of clarity, the relevant paragraphs of
the judgment are reproduced as under:
"6. From the impugned common judgment and order
[Aryan Singh v. CBI, 2022 SCC OnLine P&H 4158]
passed by the High Court, it appears that the High
Court has dealt with the proceedings before it, as if,
the High Court was conducting a mini trial and/or the
High Court was considering the applications against
the judgment and order passed by the learned trial
court on conclusion of trial. As per the cardinal
principle of law, at the stage of discharge and/or
quashing of the criminal proceedings, while
exercising the powers under Section 482 CrPC, the
Court is not required to conduct the mini trial. The
High Court in the common impugned judgment and
order has observed that the charges against the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:65866
4 MCRC-50037-2024
accused are not proved. This is not the stage where
the prosecution/investigating agency is/are required
to prove the charges. The charges are required to be
proved during the trial on the basis of the evidence
led by the prosecution/investigating agency.
7. Therefore, the High Court has materially erred in
going in detail in the allegations and the material
collected during the course of the investigation
against the accused, at this stage. At the stage of
discharge and/or while exercising the powers under
Section 482CrPC, the Court has a very limited
jurisdiction and is required to consider "whether any
sufficient material is available to proceed further
against the accused for which the accused is required
to be tried or not."
8. On perusal of FIR, charge-sheet, and material available on
record, prima facie , it appears that specific allegations have been made
against the petitioners. Statements have been recorded by the police
during investigation. As far as, mobile phones and WhatsApp chats
concerning mobile numbers 9179475755, 9644444826 and 8224863895
are concerned, there is nothing on record to show that these numbers
belonged to the complainant. The petitioners have also not disclosed that
these mobile numbers were being used by complainant. The statement of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:65866
5 MCRC-50037-2024
the complainant has been supported by other witnesses.
9. It is well-settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court that inherent powers
under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly and with
great caution. This Court, at this stage, cannot undertake a meticulous
appreciation of the evidence or conduct a mini-trial.
10. In view of the facts, circumstances, and material collected by
the prosecution in the present case, and also taking note of the law laid
down by the Supreme Court in the case referred to herein-above, in the
opinion of this Court, it is not a case where the inherent powers under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. are required to be exercised. Hence, at the
stage of proceedings, no case for interference is made out. It is for the
trial court to examine whether the defence raised by the petitioners is
proper or not.
11. Accordingly, petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023
(Section 482 of Cr.P.C., 1973) is dismissed.
12. However, it is made clear that any observations made herein
shall not prejudice the case of either party during the trial, and Trial
Court shall decide the case strictly on the basis of the evidence led before
it, uninfluenced by any observations made in this order.
(B. P. SHARMA)
JUDGE
@shish
