Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Parul Shrivastav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 March, 2025
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:9954
1 MCRC-5433-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 3 rd OF MARCH, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 5433 of 2024
ASHOK KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Deeptanshu Shukla - Advocate for the petitioners
Shri Shailendra Mishra - Dy. Govt. Advocate for respondent State.
Shri Jubin Prasad - Advocate for respondent No. 2.
WITH
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 18366 of 2024
SMT. PARUL SHRIVASTAV
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Deeptanshu Shukla - Advocate for the petitioners
Shri Shailendra Mishra - Dy. Govt. Advocate for respondent State.
Shri Jubin Prasad - Advocate for respondent No. 2.
ORDER
This order shall govern disposal of aforementioned two cases.
2. Challenge in these petitions is to the Charge-Sheet and F.I.R No.
36/2023 lodged with Police Station Mahila Thana, Bhopal for the offences
punishable under Sections 498-A, 506, 34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections
3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
3. In M.Cr.C No. 5433/2024, Applicant No. 1 is father-in-law and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:9954
2 MCRC-5433-2024
Applicant No. 2 is mother-in-law of respondent No. 2; whereas, in M.Cr.C
No. 18366/2024 the applicant is sister-in-law of respondent No. 2.
4. As per the prosecution, a First Information Report was lodged by
the complainant/respondent No. 2 with the Police that her marriage
with Piyush Shrivastava, who is son of applicants in M.Cr.C No. 5433/2024
and brother of applicant in M.Cr.C No. 18366/2024, was solemnized on
28.11.2019. At the time of marriage, apart from jewelry, Rs.10,00,000/-
(Rupees Ten lakhs) and Hyundai Car was given by the mother of respondent
No. 2. After marriage, respondent No. 2 was subjected to ill-treatment at the
behest of applicants and her husband also. They used to taunt respondent
No. 2 that she had brought less dowry at the time of marriage. It was further
alleged in the F.I.R that husband of respondent No. 2 abused her and also
treated her with cruelty and also manhandled her. On the basis of said F.I.R
the present applicants are being prosecuted.
5. Counsel for the applicants contends that the applicants are being
implicated merely in view of the fact that they are relatives of husband of
respondent No. 2. It is contended by the counsel for applicants that
Respondent No. 2 never stayed in a common household with the applicants.
As per the F.I.R respondent No. 2 herself left for United States of America
along with her husband. However, just in order to create an illusion of cause
of action, there is mention of so called date, i.e., 16th May, 2022 in the F.I.R
on which, according to respondent No. 2, the dowry was demanded by the
present applicants. It is contended by the counsel that the said allegations so
levelled in the F.I.R are baseless and vague. It is contended that it is a case
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:9954
3 MCRC-5433-2024
where the husband of respondent No. 2 on number of occasions transferred
huge amount to respondent No. 2 and the details of said transactions have
been brought on record vide Annexure A-2. It is also contended by the
counsel that the allegations are general and omnibus and there are no
mention of specific instances of cruelty or demand of dowry. It is also
contended by the counsel that the F.I.R and the statement of witnesses do not
contain any allegation of demand of dowry. The amount of demand of
dowry in the F.I.R is also not quantified and as such the allegations are
vague, baseless and general. In support of the contention, counsel for the
petitioners has relied on the decision of Apex Court in Dara Lakshmi
Narayana and others v. State of Telangana and another [2024 SCC OnLine
SC 3682], Payal Sharma v. State of Punjab and another [2024 SCC OnLine
SC 3473], Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana and another [2024 SCC OnLine
SC 759], Mirza Iqbal @ Golu and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and
another [(2022) 16 SCC 697] and Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v. State of
Bihar and others [(2022) 6 SCC 699], decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in Kunaldev Singh Rathor and others v. State of M.P. and another
[2016 SCC OnLine MP 6377], and High Court of Allahabad in Shabban
Khan and Others v. State of U.P. and another [2024 SCC OnLine All 4844].
6. 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:9954
4 MCRC-5433-2024
7. Counsel for respondent No. 2 submits that the present petition filed
by the petitioners 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. In support of contention counsel for respondent No.
2 has placed reliance on the decision of Apex Court in G.V. Siddaramesh v.
State of Karnataka [(2010) 3 SCC 152], Geeta Mehrotra and another v. State
of Uttar Pradesh and another [(2012) 10 SCC 741], Taramani Parakh v. State
of M.P. and others [(2015) 11 SCC 260], Rakhi Mishra v. State of Bihar and
others [(2017) 16 SCC 772], Meera v. State by the Inspector of Police
Thruvotriyur, Polce Station, Chennai [(2022) 3 SCC 93] and decision of
Gwalior Bench of this Court in Meena Sharma (Smt.) and ors. v. State of
M.P. and another [I.L.R (2016) MP 2385].
8. No other point is pressed or argued by counsel for the parties.
9. Heard submissions and perused the record.
10. Perusal of the record reflects that the following F.I.R is being
assailed by the present applicants and her husband:-
" ित, ीमान थाना भार महोदय म हला थाना भोपाल वषयः- मेरे
पित पीयूष ीवा तव, सास ीमती ममता ीवा तव, ससुर अशोक
ीवा तव, तथा ननद पा ल ीवा तव दारा दहे ज मे और पय क
मांग को लेकर मारपीट कर शार रक व मानिसक प से ता डत करने
तथा जान से मारने क धमक दे ने के संबंध म। महोदय, िनवेदन है क
म ािथया ीमित वषा ीवा तव पित पीयूष ीवा तव उ 32 साल
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:9954
5 MCRC-5433-2024
िनवासी म.न. जे. 195 हष वधन कालोनी माता मं दर भोपाल
मो.न.9424463993 क िनवासी हू ँ मेरा ववाह दनांक 28/11/2019 को
पीयूष ीवा तव पता ी अशोक ीवा तव िनवासी ंस वल लैट न
सी 1/504 एमएनजीएल गैस टे शन के पास गट नं. 97 बोरहडे वड़ मोशी
पुणे के साथ ह द ू र ित रवाज के अनुसार दोनो प रवार क सहमित से
पूना से संप न हुआ था मेर शाद मे मेर मां के दारा अपनी है िसयत
अनुसार सोने चांद के जेवरात तथा नगद 10 लाख पये केश व हो डाई
कार दया था शाद के बाद पूना मे कर ब 1 मह ने ससुराल मे पित पीयूष
ीवा तव, सास ीमती ममता ीवा तव, ससुर अशोक ीवा तव, तथा
ननद पा ल ीवा तव के साथ रह उस एक मह ने मे मुझसे घर का पूरा
काम करवाया गया पित पीयूष हमेशा मेरे ऊपर चीखते िच लाते व घर से
बाहर िनकल जाने को बोलते थे मुझे व मेरे प रजनो को अपश द बोलते
थे शाद मे पित पीयूष ीवा तव, सास ीमती ममता ीवा तव, ससुर
अशोक ीवा तव, तथा ननद पा ल ीवा तव क मांग के अनुसार दहे ज
दया था उसके बाद भी मेरे ससुराल वालो के दारा मुझे कम दहे ज लाने
के ताने दये जाते थे तथा मेरे से कुछ कागज पर ह ता र करवा िलये
थे। म इसिलये सब सहती रह क मेरा प रबार न टू टे फर म अपने पित
के साथ अमे रका गई शाद के पहले मेरे पित ने मुझसे कहा था क म
तुझे पी.जी करांऊगा पर तु मेरे पित ने ऐसा कुछ नह कराया शाद के
बाद से ह ससुर का दखल हमार वैवा हक ज दगी मे अ यािधक रहा
जस कारण पित का यवहार मेरे ित बहुत ह बुरा हो गया अमे रका मे
घर का पूरा काम करती फर म े नेट हो गयी मेरा पित मेरा यान नह
रखता था ससुराल से भी कोई नह आया मुझे अकेली ह सब कुछ
संभालना पड़ा पीयूष का यवहार दन पर दन बहुत खराब होता चला
गया मेर बेट होने से उनक ताडना और बढती गई उ हे बेटा चा हये था
पीयूष शराब पीकर मेरे साथ गाली गलौच व मारपीट करते तथा मुझे
मोट बोलते कहते क तुम सुदं र नह ं हो मुझे पीयूष का यवहार बहुत
असामा य दखा फटे पूराने कपड़े पहनकर बाहर जाना तेज िच लाना
गाड़ तेज चलाना मेर ननद का भी बहुत दखल हम दोनो क बीच रहा
पीयूष के माता पता को उसके असामा य यबहार के बारे मे मैने बताया
तो उ हे व ास नह हुआ पीयूष ने मेरे सोशल एकांउट को अपने लेपटाप
पर िलंक कया हुआ है पीयूष मुझे हमेशा धमक दे ते थे मेरा गला दबाने
लगते थे तथा मुझे जान से मारने क धमक दे ता था मेरे पित ने मुझे
नौकर नह ं करने द मेरे पित पीयूष ीवा तव, सास ीमती ममता
ीवा तव, ससुर अशोक ीवा तव, तथा ननद पा ल ीवा तव दारा
मुझे अ यिधक मानिसक व शार रक ताड़ना द गई जस कारण मे
ड ेशन मे आ गई पीयूष ने ब चे का बथ साट फकेट अपने पास रखा
िलया है पा पोट पुिलस क धमक दे ने पर वापस कया इन सब
ताडनाओ से परे शान हो गयी नंद क शाद तय होनी थी तब पीयूष ने
अमे रका से 16 मई 2022 मुझे अकेले व मेर ब ची विन को चार बैग व
बना पैसे के पूणे भेजा वहाँ तीन दन रह तब भी मेर सास ीमती
ममता ीवा तव, ससुर अशोक ीवा तव, तथा ननद पा ल ीवा तव
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:9954
6 MCRC-5433-2024
दारा मुझे दहे ज म और पय क मांग को लेकर शार रक व मानिसक
प से ता ड़त कया गया फर मेर मां मुझे लेने आयी और म उनके
साथ बगलौर चली गई वहां कुछ दन रह और फर मे भोपाल आ गई तब
से मे मां के पास भोपाल मे रह रह हू।ँ मेरा पित मुझे न ह लेने आता है
और न ह मेरा फोन उठाता है । अतः ीमान जी से िनबेदन है क मेरे पित
पीयूष ीवा तव, सास ीमती ममता ीवा तव, ससुर अशोक
ीवा तव, तथा ननद पा ल ीवा तव दारा दहे ज मे और पय क
मांग को लेकर मारपीट कर शार रक व मानिसक प से ता डत करने
तथा जान से मारने क धमक दे ने के संबंध मे कानूनी कायवाह करने
क कृ पा करे । दनांक 22/01/2023 ह ता र अ ेजी म ािथया ीमित
वषा ीवा तव पित पीयूष ीवा तव उ 30 साल िनवासी म.न. जे. 195
हष वधन कालोनी माता मं दर भोपाल मो.न.9424463993"
11. A perusal of F.I.R reflects that as per its contents there were taunt
at the behest of the applicants for bringing less dowry. But the said
allegations nowhere contain any demand of dowry. In the later part of F.I.R
there are allegations pertaining to demand of dowry on 16.5.2022 by the
present applicants, when the respondent No. 2 came to stay with the present
applicants at Pune after returning from America. The said part also is
conspicuously silent regarding how much amount was demanded by the
applicants in dowry. It is mentioned in the F.I.R that more money was
demanded by the applicants. The aforesaid allegations, in the considered
view of this Court, are vague, omnibus and general and in one stroke all the
applicants who are relatives of husband being sought to be implicated.
12. 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. (supra) requested the legislature to look into the issue and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:9954
7 MCRC-5433-2024
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
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."
12. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:9954
8 MCRC-5433-2024
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."
14. The Apex Court in the case of Dara Laxmi Narayana & Ors. Vs.
State of Telangana and Anr. (supra) 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."
15. The aforesaid decisions of the Apex Court clearly reveal that
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:9954
9 MCRC-5433-2024
omnibus and general allegations cannot be made basis to rope in all the
relatives of the husband and the Apex Court 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.
16. 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.
17. The judgments relied upon by the respondent No. 2 are of no avail
to her in view of the omnibus and general allegations levelled against the
applicants.
18. Hence, this Court is of the view that this petition deserves to be
allowed.
19. Resultantly, the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. stands
allowed. The FIR registered vide Crime No.36/2023 registered at Police
Station Mahila Thana, Bhopal and ensued proceedings stand quashed so far
as they relate 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
