Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sanjay Upadhayay vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 July, 2025
Author: Anuradha Shukla
Bench: Anuradha Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:29939
1 MCRC-21676-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANURADHA SHUKLA
ON THE 7 th OF JULY, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 21676 of 2025
SANJAY UPADHAYAY
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Pramod Kumar Thakre - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Amit Pandey - Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1/State.
None for the respondent No.2, though served.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heard on : 02.07.2025
Passed on: 07.07.2025
ORDER
This petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 has been preferred for
relief of quashment of FIR registered at Crime No. 20/2025, Police Station
Mahila Thana, District Seoni against the applicant regarding commission of
offence under Section 85 read with Section 3(5) of BNS and Section 3/4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. For deciding this petition the relevant facts are that the
complainant/respondent No.2 is the daughter-in-law of applicant, who has
got an FIR registered at Crime No. 20/2025 in Police Station Mahila thana,
Seoni claiming that the applicant and other family members from her
matrimonial side have demanded dowry and harassed her for said demand.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:29939
2 MCRC-21676-2025
3. Applicant is contending that the allegations made against him in said
FIR are false and frivolous and even if taken at their face value they do not
constitute the offence alleged. It is claimed that the matter was regarding the
matrimonial dispute but police did not send it to Parivar Paramarsh Kendra
for the purpose of counseling and has thus violated the direction given in the
case of Lalit Kumari Vs. State of U.P. by Hon'ble Apex Court. It is argued
that respondent No.2, after marriage, had started residing at Khandwa with
her husband and came to the house of applicant only occasionally like on
Diwali of 2023 and Holi of 2024. It is further submitted that the whole
family was, on these occasions, celebrating the festivals and
visiting/travelling various places together. Applicant had even gifted
valuable gold jewellery to her and on account of some pity quarrel with the
husband somewhere in the last week of December, 2024, she decided to seek
mutual divorce but later resiled from this decision. It is further argued that on
WhatsApp chat, complainant had even expressed apology to the applicant for
her behavior.
4. In the light of decisions of Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana
Vs. Bhajan Lal, (1992) Supp (1) SCC 335 and P.V. Krishnabhat & Anr. Vs.
State of Karnataka & Ors., SLP (Criminal) No. 1754/2024 decided on
15/01/2025 and also other decisions mentioned in the petition, it is requested
that the court should exercise inherent powers and quash the FIR and other
consequential proceedings arising out of Crime No. 20/2025.
5. State is opposing the petition claiming that there is sufficient evidence
against the applicant regarding demand of dowry and harassment caused in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:29939
3 MCRC-21676-2025
pursuance of that demand and in a matter under investigation quashment of
FIR cannot be prayed for stifling the investigation. A request has,
therefore, been made in the light of evidence collected so far, to dismiss the
petition.
6. The counsel for both sides have been heard and case diary as well as
other documents available on record have been examined.
7. Applicant is aggrieved by the registration of FIR against him claiming
that the crime has been registered on the false and frivolous facts but having
gone through the FIR and also the police statement of parents of the victim
and other witnesses, no conclusion can be drawn that these allegations are
without any truth or substance. These allegations are not only relating to
demand of dowry but also refer to the coercion (cruelty) exercised by
applicants for getting papers of divorce with mutual consent signed from the
complainant.
8. Applicant is claiming innocence on the ground that he had some
jewellery purchased for his daughter-in-law and their family was even
enjoying joint trips but the WhatsApp chat, filed as Annexure A/7, though
not to be taken cognizance of at this stage, still if taken into consideration,
suggests that applicant was not aware about this purchase of jewellery and
there is nothing on record to suggests that payment for this purchase was
made by the applicant. So far as the photographs regarding family trips or
celebrating the festival jointly are concerned, they themselves do not indicate
that the victim was not being subjected to any cruelty or harassment or there
was no demand of dowry. Facts alleged in the criminal case deserve to be
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:29939
4 MCRC-21676-2025
examined on the basis of evidence, and not merely on the photographs alone,
therefore, at the stage of investigation, no interference of this court is
warranted.
9. On the basis of judgment of P.V. Krishnabhat & Anr. (supra) , the
appellants is requesting for quashment of criminal proceedings, but there the
chargesheet was filed before the court, but, here the chargesheet is yet to be
filed and the investigation is still going on.
10. It has been observed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Inder
Mohan Goswami & Anr. v. State of Uttaranchal & Ors, AIR 2008 SC 251
that every court has inherent power to quash criminal proceedings in the
following categories of cases:
(i) to give effect to an order under the Code;
(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and
(iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice.
11. In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866 , the Apex court
summarized some categories of cases where inherent power can and should
be exercised to quash the proceedings:
(i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar
against the institution or continuance of the
proceedings;
(ii) where the allegations in the first information report
or complaint taken at their face value and accepted in
their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged;
(iii) where the allegations constitute an offence, but
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:29939
5 MCRC-21676-2025
there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence
adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge.
12. Same were the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, (1992) Supp (1) SCC 335.
13. Applying these principles laid down by the Apex Court in aforesaid
judgments and even in the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the
applicant, the settled legal position is that the wholesome power under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C./528 of BNSS, 2023 entitles the High Court to quash a
proceeding when it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceedings
would be an abuse of process of the court or the ends of justice required that
the proceedings ought to be quashed and it enjoins a duty that the High Court
should critically examine, whether the allegations made in the First
Information Report taken on their face value and accepted in their entirety
would prima-facie constitute an offence. Since the facts revealed in the FIR
of present case and the statements of witnesses reflect the ingredients of a
cognizable offence, therefore, this Court finds that the present case has no
such condition prevailing and accordingly this Court is not inclined to allow
the petition and interfere in the criminal process which is initiated against
the applicant.
14. Accordingly, petition is dismissed summarily.
(ANURADHA SHUKLA)
JUDGE
skt
