Madhya Pradesh High Court
Priyesh Gupta vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 February, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:2848
1 MCRC-4238-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 10th OF FEBRUARY, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 4238 of 2025
PRIYESH GUPTA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sourav Singh Tomar - Advocate for the applicant.
Dr. Anjali Gyanani - Public Prosecutor for the State.
ORDER
This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking
quashment of FIR in Crime No.17/2024 registered at Police Station Mahila
Thana Datia, District Datia for offence under Sections 85, 115(2), 351(3) and
3(5) of BNS.
2. It is fairly conceded by counsel for applicant that an application
under Section 528 of BNSS which was filed by his parents in the case
of Rajendra Kumar Gupta & Another Vs. State of M.P. and Others and was
registered as MCRC No.3205/2025 has already been dismissed by this Court
by order dated 29/01/2025.
3. Heard the learned counsel for applicant.
4. This Court in the case of Rajendra Kumar Gupta (supra) has held
has under:-
"This application, under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023, has
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:2848
2 MCRC-4238-2025
been filed for quashment of FIR in Crime No.17/2024 registered
at Police Station Datia Mahila Thana, District, Datia, for offences
under Sections 85, 115(2), 351(3) and 3(5) of B.N.S., 2023.
2. Undisputedly, Rajendra Kumar Gupta is the father-in-law of
respondent No.2 whereas Jyoti Gupta is the mother-in-law of
respondent No.2.
3. Respondent No.2 lodged an FIR that she got married to Priyesh
Gupta on 03/02/2016 in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals.
Her father, apart from gold and silver ornaments, had given goods
worth Rupees 25 lakhs, in marriage. When she came to her
matrimonial house, her husband and applicants started harassing
her physically and mentally on the ground of bringing less dowry.
They also used to assault her. They also used to pass taunts on the
ground that she was unable to conceive. They were also saying
that since respondent No.2 is unable to conceive, therefore, she
should be ousted from her house after giving divorce. When she
replied to applicants and her husband that her parents had given
adequate dowry in accordance with the demand made by them,
then they never listened to her. On various festivals, they were
passing taunts that she has not brought jewelry, clothes, etc. from
her parental home. She was tolerating these atrocities under the
hope and belief that with passage of time, things would improve
and in case report is lodged, then her matrimonial life would be in
jeopardy. Her parents also tried to convince applicants and her
husband. On 03/11/2021, on the ground of non-conception as well
as on the ground of not bringing jewelry, clothes, etc. from her
parental home, she was beaten by all three persons, i.e. her
husband and applicants, and then she was ousted from her
matrimonial house. She came back to her parental home at Datia
by train, and since then she has been residing in her parental
home. On 30/05/2024, she went back to Raipur, where she was not
allowed to enter her matrimonial house by applicants. She was
filthily abused by applicants and her belongings were also thrown.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:2848
3 MCRC-4238-2025
It was alleged that she is a "Banjh" and there is no possibility of
conceiving and accordingly, they would remarry their son. They
also extended a threat that they would kill her by setting her on
fire. Thereafter, she informed her parents, who brought her back to
Datia. On 18/10/2024, her husband came to Datia, where her
parents tried to convince him, but he started raising a demand of
Rs.2 lakhs. He also alleged that since respondent No.2 cannot
conceive, therefore, he will not keep her with him, and since then
she is residing in her parental home.
4. Challenging the FIR lodged by respondent No.2, it is submitted
by counsel for applicants that husband of respondent No.2 has
filed an application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act,
which is pending in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court,
Raipur, and only after the institution of said application, the FIR in
question has been lodged. Therefore, it is alleged that the FIR is a
counterblast in nature. However, during the course of arguments,
it was admitted by counsel for applicants that application under
Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed on 05/11/2024,
whereas the FIR was lodged on 30/10/2024, and therefore it was
admitted that the FIR lodged by respondent No.2 is prior in time. It
is further submitted that reconciliation proceedings had taken
place at Mahila Thana, Datia, and it was found that because of
ideological differences between respondent No.2 and her husband,
it was not possible to come to any conclusion. The husband of
respondent No.2 has specifically stated that he does not wish to
keep respondent No.2 with him, and therefore he wants divorce,
and accordingly, they were suggested to approach the Court. It is
further submitted that if applicants were harassing respondent
No.2, then she would not have filed an application under Section 9
of the Hindu Marriage Act. Therefore, it appears that the
allegations made in the FIR are false.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
6. Respondent No.2 has specifically alleged in the FIR that she
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:2848
4 MCRC-4238-2025
was ousted from her matrimonial house on 03/11/2021, and since
then she has been residing in her parental home. On 30/05/2024,
she went to her matrimonial house, where she was filthily abused
by applicants and was not allowed to enter the matrimonial house.
Her belongings were thrown, and it was also alleged that she
cannot conceive, and therefore applicants would get their son
remarried. A threat was also given that she would be killed by
burning.
7. The Supreme Court, in the case of Rupali Devi v. State of U.P.,
reported in (2019) 5 SCC 384 has held that if a married woman is
compelled to leave her matrimonial house on account of non-
fulfillment of demand of dowry or on account of cruelty, then it
would amount to mental cruelty. In the FIR, there are specific
allegations that when respondent No.2 went to her matrimonial
house, then she was not only abused filthily but she was also
ousted from her matrimonial house and was not allowed to enter.
It was also alleged that she cannot conceive, and therefore they
would remarry their son and respondent No.2 would be killed by
setting her on fire.
8. If a married woman does not wish to take divorce and in spite
of cruelty is interested in restitution of conjugal rights, then it
cannot be said that the allegations made in the FIR are per se false.
Although it has already been held by this Court that the FIR was
filed prior to the filing of the application under Section 13 of
Hindu Marriage Act, but even otherwise it is clear that the findings
recorded by the Civil Court are not binding on the Criminal Court.
The Supreme Court, in the case of Pratibha v. Rameshwari Devi,
reported in (2007) 12 SCC 369 has held as under:-
"14. From a plain reading of the findings arrived at by
the High Court while quashing the FIR, it is apparent
that the High Court had relied on extraneous
considerations and acted beyond the allegations made in
the FIR for quashing the same in exercise of its inherent
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:2848
5 MCRC-4238-2025
powers under Section 482 of the Code. We have
already noted the illustrations enumerated in BhajanLal
case [1992 Supp (1) SCC335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426]
and from a careful reading of these illustrations, we are
of the view that the allegations emerging from the FIR
are not covered by any of the illustrations as noted
hereinabove. For example, we may take up one of the
findings of the High Court as noted hereinabove. The
High Court has drawn an adverse inference on account
of the FIR being lodged on 31-12-2001 while the
appellant was forced out of the matrimonial home on
25-5-2001. 15. In our view, in the facts and
circumstances of the case, the High Court was not
justified in drawing an adverse inference against the
appellant wife for lodging the FIR on 31-12-2001 on the
ground that she had left the matrimonial home at least
six months before that. This is because, in our view, the
High Court had failed to appreciate that the appellant
and her family members were, during this period,
making all possible efforts to enter into a settlement so
that Respondent 2 husband would take her back to the
matrimonial home. If any complaint was made during
this period, there was every possibility of not entering
into any settlement with Respondent 2 husband. 16. It is
pertinent to note that the complaint was filed only when
all efforts to return to the matrimonial home had failed
and Respondent 2 husband had filed a divorce petition
under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. That
apart, in our view, filing of a divorce petition in a civil
court cannot be a ground to quash criminal proceedings
under Section 482 of the Code as it is well settled that
criminal and civil proceedings are separate and
independent and the pendency of a civil proceeding
cannot bring to an end a criminal proceeding even if
they arise out of the same set of facts. Such being the
position, we are, therefore, of the view that the High
Court while exercising its powers under Section 482 of
the Code has gone beyond the allegations made in the
FIR and has acted in excess of its jurisdiction and,
therefore, the High Court was not justified in quashing
the FIR by going beyond the allegations made in the
FIR or by relying on extraneous considerations. 22. For
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:2848
6 MCRC-4238-2025
the reasons aforesaid, we are inclined to interfere with
the order of the High Court and hold that the High
Court in quashing the FIR in the exercise of its inherent
powers under Section 482 of the Code by relying on the
investigation report and the findings made therein has
acted beyond its jurisdiction. For the purpose of finding
out the commission of a cognizable offence, the High
Court was only required to look into the allegations
made in the complaint or the FIR and to conclude
whether a prima facie offence had been made out by the
complainant in the FIR or the complaint or not."
9. This Court, while exercising power under Section 482 of CrPC,
cannot embark upon a roving inquiry and cannot conduct a mini-
trial in order to find out whether allegations made in the FIR are
correct or not. In the light of judgments passed by the Supreme
Court in the cases of XYZ v. State of Gujarat reported in (2019)
10 SCC 337, State of Tamil Nadu Vs. S. Martin & Ors. reported
in (2018) 5 SCC 718, Ajay Kumar Das v. State of Jharkhand,
reported in (2011) 12 SCC 319, Mohd. Akram Siddiqui v. State of
Bihar reported in (2019) 13 SCC 350, State of A.P. v. Gourishetty
Mahesh reported in (2010) 11 SCC 226, M. Srikanth v. State of
Telangana, reported in (2019) 10 SCC 373, CBI v. Arvind Khanna
reported in (2019) 10 SCC 686, State of MP Vs. Kunwar Singh by
order dated 30.06.2021 passed in Cr.A. No.709/2021, Munshiram
v. State of Rajasthan, reported in (2018) 5 SCC 678, Teeja Devi v.
State of Rajasthan reported in (2014) 15 SCC 221, State of Orissa
v. Ujjal Kumar Burdhan, reported in (2012) 4 SCC 547, S.
Khushboo v. Kanniammal reported in (2010) 5 SCC 600, Sangeeta
Agrawal v. State of U.P., reported in (2019) 2 SCC 336, Amit
Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460, Padal
Venkata Rama Reddy Vs. Kovuri Satyanarayana Reddyreported in
(2012) 12 SCC 437 and M.N. Ojha v. Alok Kumar Srivastav
reported in (2009) 9 SCC 682, this Court can quash the
proceedings only if the uncontroverted allegations do not make
out an offence.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:2848
7 MCRC-4238-2025
10. Considering the allegations made in the FIR, this Court is of
considered opinion that no case is made out warranting
interference. The application fails and is hereby dismissed."
5. Since, the case of applicant is at par with the case of his
parents. Accordingly, this application is also dismissed in the terms and
conditions of the order passed in the case of Rajendra Kumar Gupta (supra).
(G. S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
PjS/-
