Madhya Pradesh High Court
Hemant Kumar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 July, 2025
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:14791
1 WP-33999-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 3 rd OF JULY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 33999 of 2024
HEMANT KUMAR AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Mayank Mishra - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Sohit Mishra - Govt. Advocate fort the State.
Ms. Richa Bhadoriya - Advocate for respondent No.4.
RESERVED ON : 03/07/2025
DELIVERED ON : 22/7/2025
ORDER
The present petition, under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of
India, has been filed by the petitioners seeking quashment of F.I.R. dated
03.12.2020 bearing Crime No.1324 of 2020 registered at Police Station
Kotwali, District Morena for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A,
323, 504 of IPC read with Sections 3, 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
against the petitioners.
2. As per the prosecution story, allegations made by respondent No.4
against present petitioners No.1 to 3, husband, father-in-law and mother-in-
law respectively are of harassing her mentally & physically and hurling filthy
language on account of demand of dowry after her marriage which was
solemnized on 01.05.2014 with petitioner No.1 as per Hindu rituals and rites.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:14791
2 WP-33999-2024
On the basis of such allegations, an F.I.R. was lodged against the petitioners
for the offences as indicated above. Aggrived by the aforesaid, the present
petition has been filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners had submitted before this Court
that the petitioners have been implicated in the present case only on the basis
of omnibus allegations and there is no sufficient evidence to connect them
with the alleged crime of harassment and demand of dowry from the
complainant/respondent No.4.
4. It was further submitted that from plain reading of F.I.R. and
charge-sheet it is indicated that allegations levelled against the husband and
his relatives are quite vague, general and no specific instance of criminal
conduct has been stated in the F.I.R.. No material is available in the charge-
sheet, which may connect them with the charges attributed to them.
5. It was further submitted that the Court can quash the criminal
proceedings where it is manifestly attended with mala-fide and where it is
maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the
accused and with a view to spite them due to private and personal grudge and
if the First Information Report is perused, the same would reveal that there is
futile attempt by respondent No.4 to implicate the present petitioners. To
bolster his submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment
of the Apex Court in the matter of Preeti Gupta & Another Vs. State of
Jharkhand & Another reported in (2010) 7 SCC (Cr) 473 .
6 . Per contra, learned Govt. Advocate for the State as well as the
counsel for the complainant had opposed the submissions so made by
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:14791
3 WP-33999-2024
counsel for the petitioners and had submitted that at best the petitioners
should have availed the remedy available to them under Section 482 of the
CrPC for quashing the F.I.R. registered against him and his family members
and as such, this petition is not maintainable.
7. It was also submitted that if cognizable offence is made out, then the
F.I.R. cannot be said to be illegal, as from the averments made in the
impugned F.I.R. as well as in the complaint which were corroborated from
the oral and documentary evidence collected by I.O. during investigation,
which had culminated into registration of an F.I.R. against the present
petitioners.
8. It was further submitted that the First Information Report speaks
volumes about the demand of dowry at the behest of the present petitioners
and as per the First Information Report, prima facie a case is made out
against them under the aforesaid Sections and therefore, no interference is
warranted.
9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the
documents available on record.
10. For meticulous analysis of the matter, it is necessary to look into
the relevant contents of F.I.R., the extract of which is reproduced herein
below:
".....................शाद के बाद से ह मुझे मेरा पित हे म त
कुमार, सुसर अजब िसंह, सास भगवान दे वी दहे ज को लेकर
ता डत कर छोट छोट बातो पर परे शान करने लगे मुझसे कहते
थे क अपने घर से 05 लाख पए और एसी लेकर आओ तब तु हे
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:14791
4 WP-33999-2024
रखेगे तो मैने कहा क मेरे पताजी के पास इतना पए नह ं जो
आपलोग का द सकगे। लाँक डाउन के समय छुटट होने जाने से
मैने कहा क मुझे भी सुसराल ले चल तो मेरे पित के ारा गाली
गलोज दे ते हुए मेर मारपीट क और मुझे मायके म छोड गए। तब
मेरे पताजी ने समाज क पंचायत होने पर मै दनांक 08.09.2020
को अपनी ससुराल चली गई थी ले कन दहे ज लोभी मेरे ससुराल
वाले नह ं माने छोट छोट वात पर मुझे मानिसक व शार रक प
से दहे ज के िलए ता डत करने लगे और दनांक 21.09.2020 को
मेरे पित व ससुर अजब िसंह सास भगवान दे ह मुझे मेर अचानक
तबीयत खराब होने से मैै सो गई तो इसी वात मुझे मेरे ससुराल
वालो ने मेर मारपीट क तव मैने अपने पताजी को फोन कया
और सार वात वताई। मेरे पताजी वहॉं पर गए और उ हे
समझाया तो नह ं माने बोले क 5 लाख पए एवं एसी नह ं दोगे
तब तक तु हार लडक को नह ं रखेगे और मुझे मारपीट कर घर से
भगा दया। तब मेरे पताजी मुझे लेकर मुरैना आ गए। उसके वाद
दनांक 22.09.2020 को मेरे पित हे म त मुरैना आया और मुझे
दहे ज को लेकर गाली गलौज कर मेर मारपीट क तव मेरे पता जी
ने मुझे बचाया। ....."
11. Admittedly, in the present case, on 03.12.2020, First Information
Report was lodged by respondent No.4 and the entire First Information
report, if perused meticulously, would reveal that there are specific
allegations against the present petitioners regarding continuous demand of
dowry. If the First Information Report is subjected to cogitative scrutiny and
if an effort is made to read between the lines, it could safely be said that in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:14791
5 WP-33999-2024
the present case, there are specific allegations against the present petitioners
in the First Information Report, which would attract Sections 498-A, 323,
504 of IPC read with Sections 3, 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
Thus, this Court doesn't find any justifiable reason warranting interference
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the impugned F.I.R.,
as it has to be exercised for the ends of the justice and should not be
arbitrarily exercised to cut short the normal process of a criminal trial and if
any abuse of the process leading to injustice is brought to the notice of the
Court, then the Court would be justified in preventing injustice.
12. Accordingly, no case of interference with the impugned F.I.R. has
been made out by the petitioner. Hence, the instant petition being sans merit
is hereby dismissed. No costs.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
pwn*
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH
GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH
GWALIOR,
2.5.4.20=b864d1ab4ace2215bfcf3ab301c34d631287f1b1cdd90b
4a49f265f02d9d593f, postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh,
serialNumber=61B9D129971D2EA4FD4455ED49EA436EA65E261
64BEEED89153191C56E98CE21, cn=PAWAN KUMAR
Date: 2025.07.22 19:12:28 +05'30'
