Madhya Pradesh High Court
Faraz Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 February, 2025
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:8126
1 MCRC-1154-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 19th OF FEBRUARY, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 1154 of 2021
FARAZ KHAN AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sushil Kumar Sharma - Advocate for the applicants.
Shri C.K. Mishra - Govt. Advocate for respondent State.
Shri Amit Kumar Sharma - Advocate for respondent No. 2.
ORDER
Quashing of F.I.R/Crime No. 97/2020 dated 22.9.2020 and the
proceedings emanate therefrom are being sought through this petition under
Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
2. Applicant No. 1 is brother-in-law, applicant No. 2 mother-in-law
and applicant No. 2 is father-in-law of respondent No. 2. The applicants are
being prosecuted on the strength of First Information Report lodged vide
Crime No. 97/2020 with Mahila Thana, District Bhopal. Counsel for the
applicants contends that the respondent No. 2 approached the Police with a
complaint that she was treated with cruelty by the present applicants. It was
stated by the respondent No. 2 in the First Information Report that her
marriage with Farhan Khan was solemnized on 28.12.2018. After the
marriage, husband of respondent No. 2 and applicants started demanding
four-wheeler, Rs.5,00,000/- Cash and also a house in dowry and the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:8126
2 MCRC-1154-2021
Respondent No. 2 was subjected to manhandling. It was further stated in the
F.I.R that respondent No. 2 was pregnant and as was being ignored by the
applicants, she came to her parents house in November, 2019 then she
delivered a child while staying at her parental place and even after lapse of
six months from the birth of the child no efforts were made by her in-laws to
find whereabouts of respondent No. 2 and accordingly a report was lodged.
It is contended by the counsel for the applicants that perusal of F.I.R as well
as the statement of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C reveal that
the allegations are omnibus and general and there is no mention of any
specific date, place or time when the respondent No. 2 was subjected to
demand of dowry or was subjected to cruelty at the behest of the applicants.
It is contended by the counsel for the applicants that applicant No. 1 is
Captain in Indian Army and he was posted at various places and did not stay
in a common household with the respondent No. 2 and her husband, hence
his implication is unsustainable. It is further contended by the counsel that
the implication of applicant Nos. 2 and 3 is also unsustainable as they have
been roped in unnecessarily on the basis of vague, omnibus and general
allegations. It is contended by the counsel that the approach of respondent
No. 2 right from the date of marriage was indifferent and she was
pressurizing her husband to reside with her parents and as such the report
was lodged by respondent No. 2 with oblique motive. It is, therefore,
contended by the counsel that the entire prosecution deserves to be quashed
and in support of contention counsel has placed reliance on an order dated
13.3.2019 of this Court in Smt. Somly Gupta and Anr. v. State of M.P. and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:8126
3 MCRC-1154-2021
Anr (M.Cr.C No. 25326/2018). It is also contended by the counsel that the
entire expenses as regards delivery of the child were borne by the applicants
and thus, the allegations were baseless and fake and it is contended by the
counsel for the applicants that since the applicants are being harassed at the
behest of respondent No. 2, the F.I.R and ensued proceedings deserve to be
quashed. It is also contended by the counsel that in the case of Somly Gupta
(supra) it has been held by this Court that a petition under Section 482 is
required to be dealt with irrespective of the stage of trial. Hence as the F.I.R
and the ensued proceeding are being assailed in a petition even subsequent
framing of charge does not make the present petition to be otiose.
Accordingly, it is contended by the counsel that the petition be allowed.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that the petition
deserves to be dismissed as there are direct allegations against the applicants.
At this stage, no interference with the FIR and ensued proceedings is
warranted as the FIR palpably reflects the allegations of commission of
offence.
4. Counsel for respondent No. 2 submits that the present petition filed
by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed. In the present case there were
direct and clear allegation against the present petitioners. Respondent No. 2
was not only manhandled but also subjected to severe cruelty at the behest of
the applicants under the garb of demand of dowry. It is contended by the
counsel that as the First Information Report contains allegation which attract
Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code, no interference at this stage is
warranted by this Court. It is also contended by the counsel that along with
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:8126
4 MCRC-1154-2021
I.A No. 11741/2022 an order is brought on record, which reflects that the
charges against the applicant have been framed and order of framing of
charge was assailed by the present applicants by filing a revision. The
revision filed by the applicants has been dismissed. Counsel for respondent
No. 2 also submits that another application has been filed vide I.A No.
4808/2022 and along with the said I.A, documents have been brought on
record to demonstrate that the applicant while making applications before
different authorities had themselves mentioned their address 18/3, Eagle
House, Green Valley Enclave, Airport Road, Bhopal, which is the address of
the applicants in the charge-sheet. Hence, attempt has been made by the
present applicant to mislead this Court and as such the petition deserves to
be dismissed. Counsel for the respondent No. 2has placed reliance on the
decision dated 29.1.2024 of High Court of Delhi in Geeta Monga v. GNG
Stock Holding Pvt. Ltd. (crl.m.c. 356/2024 & crl.m.a 1451/2024) and
decision dated 14.3.2024 of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Avijit
Sharma v. State of M.P. and another (M.CR.C. No. 9662/2022).
5. No other point is pressed or argued by counsel for the parties.
6. Heard submissions and perused the record.
7. Perusal of the record reflects that the following F.I.R is being
assailed by the present applicants:-
ित, ीमान थाना भार महोदय म हला थाना भोपाल म. .
वषय:- पित, सास, ससुर एवं दे वर ारा दहे ज क मांग को लेकर
मानिसक शार रक प से ता डत करने बाबत। महोदया,
िनवेदन है क मै ािथया समीहा नसीर खान पित फरहान खान
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:8126
5 MCRC-1154-2021
उ 23 साल पता ई-04/217 अरे रा कालोनी थाना हबीबगंज
भोपाल क िनवासी हू।ं मेरा ववाह दनांक 28/12/2018 को
फरहान खान पता इरफान अहमद खान िनवासी 18/3 ईगल
हाउस ीनवैली एन लेव हज हाउस के पास गार
ृं चोली एयरपोट
रोड भोपाल के साथ मु लम र ित- रवाज अनुसार हुआ था।
जससे मुझे एक बेटा 08 माह का है , शाद के लगभग दो माह
तक सब सह रहा उसके बाद से मेरे पित फरहान, सास अफरोज
खान, ससुर इरफान अहमद खान व दे वर फराज खान ने दहे ज म
बड गाड़ , 05 लाख पये कैश तथा एक मकान क मांग को
लेकर परे शान करना शु कर दया, वे लोग रोज मेरे साथ मारपीट
करते थे, जब मै गभवती थी तब इन लोगो ने मुझ पर कोई
यान नह दया जस वजह से मै नव बर 2019 को अपने मायके
आकर रहने लगी और मेर डलीवर मेरे मायके मे ह हुई थी
जसका पूरा खचा मेरे माता- पता ारा क यय कया गया था,
तथा मेरा ब चा 08 माह का हो गया है , ले कन ससुराल वालो ने
आज तक मेरे ब चे क कोई खैर-खबर नह ली है । मेरे ससुराल
वाले दहे ज क मांग को लेकर मेरे साथ आय दन मारपीट कर
मानिसक व शार रक प से ता डत करते है , मै अपने ससुराल
वालो क ताड़ना से काफ परे शान हू।ं अत: ीमान जी से
िनवेदन है क मेरे पित फरहान, सास अफरोज खान, ससुर इरफान
अहमद खान व दे वर फराज खान के व उिचत कानूनी
कायवाह करने क कृ पा कर। ह ता र अं ेजी म ािथया समीहा
नसीर खान पित फरहान खान पता ई-04/217 अरे रा कालोनी
थाना हबीबगंज भोपाल, मो. न.- 9685484441
8. The said F.I.R reflects that the respondent No. 2 approached Mahila
Thana, Bhopal with a complaint that her marriage was solemnized with one
Farjhan Khan on 28.12.2018 and after two months from the date of marriage
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:8126
6 MCRC-1154-2021
there was demand by her husband and present applicants of a four wheeler,
Rs.5,00,000/- cash and a house. It was further alleged that the present
applicants were manhandling the respondent No. 2. Thereafter the
respondent No. 2 in the month of November, 2019 started residing at her
parents place and then lodged F.I.R on 22.9.2020. Identical allegations are
there in the statement of the witnesses, viz. Hafiz Nasir and Shabana Nasir
who are parents of the respondent No. 2. The other witnesses in their
statement have levelled the same allegations which are contained in the First
Information Report. The allegations levelled in the F.I.R do not contain any
specific date on which the applicants demanded dowry. There are no
specific instances of cruelty and in one stroke allegations have been levelled
against the applicants. The applicants are undisputedly relatives of the
husband of respondent No. 2.
9. The issue pertaining to levelling of omnibus and general allegations
has been taken note of in plethora of decisions by the Apex Court. The Apex
Court recently in the case of Achin Gupta Vs. State of Haryana and Anr. in
Criminal Appeal No.2379/2024 requested the legislature to look into the
issue and take into consideration the informed public opinion and pragmatic
realities and make necessary changes in the relevant provision of law. The
Apex Court while dealing with the issue regarding general and omnibus
allegations against the husband including his family members, has held in
paragraph 18 as under:
"18. The plain reading of the FIR and the chargesheet papers
indicate that the allegations levelled by the First Informant are
quite vague, general and sweeping, specifying no instances of
criminal conduct. It is also pertinent to note that in the FIR no
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:8126
7 MCRC-1154-2021
specific date or time of the alleged offence/offences has been
disclosed. Even the police thought fit to drop the proceedings
against the other members of the Appellant's family. Thus, we are
of the view that the FIR lodged by the Respondent No. 2 was
nothing but a counterblast to the divorce petition & also the
domestic violence case."
10. The Apex Court in the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and
Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599 held in
paragraphs 16 and 17 as under:-
"16. Recently, in K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana [K. Subba Rao
v. State of Telangana, (2018) 14 SCC 452 : (2019) 1 SCC (Cri) 605] , it was
also observed that : (SCC p. 454, para 6).
"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."
18. Coming to the facts of this case, upon a perusal of the contents
of the FIR dated 1-4-2019, it is revealed that general allegations
are levelled against the appellants. The complainant alleged that
"all accused harassed her mentally and threatened her of
terminating her pregnancy". Furthermore, no specific and distinct
allegations have been made against either of the appellants herein
i.e. none of the appellants have been attributed any specific role in
furtherance of the general allegations made against them. This
simply leads to a situation wherein one fails to ascertain the role
played by each accused in furtherance of the offence. The
allegations are, therefore, general and omnibus and can at best be
said to have been made out on account of small skirmishes.
Insofar as husband is concerned, since he has not appealed against
the order of the High Court, we have not examined the veracity of
allegations made against him. However, as far as the appellants
are concerned, the allegations made against them being general
and omnibus, do not warrant prosecution."
11. The Apex Court in the case of Dara Laxmi Narayana & Ors. Vs.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:8126
8 MCRC-1154-2021
State of Telangana and Anr. reported in SCC Online SC 3682 dealt with the
issue as regards FIR being counter blast and held in paragraphs 25 and 29 as
under:
"25. A mere reference to the names of family members in a
criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific
allegations indicating their active involvement should be nipped in
the bud. It is a well-recognised fact, borne out of judicial
experience, that there is often a tendency to implicate all the
members of the husband's family when domestic disputes arise
out of a matrimonial discord. Such generalised and sweeping
accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularised
allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. Courts
must exercise caution in such cases to prevent misuse of legal
provisions and the legal process and avoid unnecessary
harassment of innocent family members. In the present case,
appellant Nos.2 to 6, who are the members of the family of
appellant No.1 have been living in different cities and have not
resided in the matrimonial house of appellant No.1 and respondent
No.2 herein. Hence, they cannot be dragged into criminal
prosecution and the same would be an abuse of the process of the
law in the absence of specific allegations made against each of
them."
12. The aforesaid decisions of the Apex Court clearly reveal that
omnibus and general allegations cannot be made basis to rope in all the
relatives of the husband and has also taken note of the unusual practice of
implicating the relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes and the
cases lodged under Section 498-A of I.P.C.
13. Thus, if the F.I.R is perused in the light of aforesaid decisions of
the Apex Court the same would reveal that there are omnibus and general
allegations against the applicants which lack in necessary details including
the specific instances of alleged cruelty.
14. So far as the objection of the respondent No. 2 regarding
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:8126
9 MCRC-1154-2021
maintainability of the petition after order of framing of charge is concerned,
in view of the judgment of this Court in Somly Gupta (supra), this petition is
maintainable and cannot be thrown overboard merely in view of the fact that
subsequently charges were framed against the applicants. The judgment
relied upon by the respondent No. 2 is of no avail to her in view of the
omnibus and general allegations levelled against the applicants.
15. Hence, this Court is of the view that this petition deserves to be
allowed.
16. Resultantly, the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. stands
allowed. The FIR registered vide Crime No.97/2020 registered at Police
Station Mahila Thana, Bhopal and ensued proceedings stand quashed so far
as they relates to applicants. The applicants are discharged from the aforesaid
charges. Bail bonds and Surety bonds, if any, furnished by the applicants also
stand discharged.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
VKT
