Aseem Kumar Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2025 Latest Caselaw 549 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Aseem Kumar Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 May, 2025

Author: Sanjay Dwivedi

Bench: Sanjay Dwivedi

                                                      1
                                                                                          M.Cr.C-37396-2024

              IN     THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                             AT    JABALPUR
                                                  BEFORE
                 HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI
                                 ON THE 9th OF MAY, 2025
                                  M.CR.C. No. 37396 of 2024
                            ASEEM KUMAR SHARMA AND OTHERS
                                                   Versus
                         STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................


Appearance:

         Shri Anil Khare - Senior Advocate with Shri A. John Mathew -
Advocate for the petitioners.
             Shri D.R. Vishwakarma - Government Advocate for the respondent
Nos.1/State.

        Shri Deepesh Joshi and Shri Qasim Ali- Advocates for the respondent
No.2-complainant/objector.
.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................


Heard on :            10.03.2025
Pronounced on :       09.05.2025         .
                                                  ORDER

Pleadings are complete.

2. Counsel for the parties have agreed to argue the matter finally. Accordingly, it is finally heard.

3. The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. 2023/Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR registered vide Crime No.100/2024 at Police Station Mahila Thana, Bhopal for the offence under Sections 498-A, 323, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against the petitioners. The petitioners are seeking

M.Cr.C-37396-2024

quashing of FIR and all consequential proceedings initiated in pursuance of the said FIR.

4. After hearing rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, it is apt to mention necessary facts to decide the question emerged for adjudication as under:-

4.1 The petitioner No.1 is the father-in-law and petitioner No.2 is the mother-in-law of the complainant(respondent No.2).

4.2 A written complaint was made by the complainant who is the wife of Ankit Sharma (co-accused) to the Police Station In-charge, Mahila Thana, Bhopal alleging physical and mental harassment by the present petitioners and also by her husband demanding dowry and depriving her of her belongings. In the said complaint, she has stated that her marriage was solemnized with Ankit Sharma on 19.11.2019 as per Hindu rites and customs with the consent of his parents at Raipur, Chhattisgarh. The husband of the complainant Ankit Sharma and his parents belonged to Mumbai and all arrangements of the marriage were made as per their demand. The complainant was informed at the time of marriage that after solemnizing the marriage, she would go to Sau Paulo (Brazil). It is also alleged in the complaint that after her marriage, on 23.11.2019 when the complainant reached her marital home at Mumbai, the present petitioners and co-accused forcefully took all her jewellery and she was given a very neglected treatment because they were not satisfied with the arrangements made in the marriage. 4.3 On 24.11.2019, the petitioners and her aunt-in-law (mausi-saas) ill-

treated parents of the complainant and also her relatives. Her aunt-in-law also abused her physically and snatched away her mobile. There were several allegations made in the complaint for mental and physical harassment. 4.4 As per the complainant, when the complainant reached Sau Palo (Brazil) with her husband in February, 2020, he started harassing her and very often used

M.Cr.C-37396-2024

to quarrel with her and sometimes, he tried to assault the complainant. In the month of August, 2020, when the complainant went to a Gynaecologist with her husband, the doctor after examining her had asked her if her husband had assaulted her because he noticed severe injuries on her private part. Such, allegations were made by the complainant in the FIR and also disclosed that present petitioners were not willing to get the complainant pregnant and they were not in favour of delivering any child out of the said wedlock and as such, the co- accused (husband) had given several medicines relating to birth control which adversely affected her physical condition.

4.5 The father of the complainant retired in the month of March, 2021 and at that time, the complainant asked her husband to visit India but he refused to go saying that he did not have sufficient amount. Resultantly, the complainant's father had deposited Rs. 2 lacs in her husband's account and the retirement ceremony was attended by the present petitioners where they declared that they were not willing to keep the complainant with them and asked him to retain his daughter, which was objected by her father and only after this objection, the complainant was able to return to Brazil with her husband. 4.6 It is also alleged in the complaint that the younger brother of complainant's husband had expressed his willingness to pursue M.S. and, therefore, petitioner no.1 allegedly transferred Rs. 2 crores to the Dean, Sion Hospital for getting his son admitted. However, neither admission was obtained nor the money was refunded and the said amount was grabbed by the Dean of the said hospital. Subsequently, petitioner No.1 has lodged an FIR bearing no. 525/22 at the Trombay Police Station and after this incident, the petitioner no.1 and co- accused (husband of complainant) asked the complainant to bring an amount of Rs.1 crore from her father as early as possible. When the complainant could not arrange the said amount, she was discarded and her ornaments were seized and

M.Cr.C-37396-2024

were also not returned and thereafter she came to India and started living with her parents.

4.7 Considering the conduct of the petitioners and husband of the complainant, she had no other option left but to make a written complaint against them and as such, the present offence got registered.

5. Shri Anil Khare, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners has tried to establish a case that the allegations made in the complaint are false and baseless, however, the situation was otherwise. The complainant was unnecessarily harassing the petitioners including her husband and threatening them and as such, a complaint was made to the police, i.e. Annexure P/2 dated 28.02.2024 to the Senior Police Inspector, Trombay Police Station, Mumbai and the present FIR is nothing but a counter blast to the said complaint. It is also submitted by Shri Khare that if the statement of complainant recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. is seen, it is clear that the allegations are made against the maternal aunt in law i.e. mausi saas, but there was no allegation against the present petitioners. He has also submitted that father of the complainant belongs to district judiciary and he is a retired District Judge and initially police was not lodging the instant report/FIR because according to the police there was no substance in the allegation made by the complainant but later on, on the pressure created by the father of the complainant, the FIR got registered. He submitted that now it has become a fashion of making such false allegations if any dispute arises between husband and wife because of any bitterness in their relationship and submitted that in the present case also, the complainant is not willing to live with her husband and, therefore, she was trying to stay in India only and was also compelling her husband to come back to India and she was also interested to live with her parents and her parents also unnecessarily creating pressure upon the present petitioners and husband of the complainant to return back to India.

M.Cr.C-37396-2024

6. Shri Khare has further submitted that husband of the complainant is also earning a very handsome amount and petitioner No.2 is a Director and distinguished Scientist at Beam Technology Development Group and also a Senior Professor at Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai and looking to the status, the allegations made in the complaint can be considered to be false allegations and as such, in view of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in case of Preeti Gupta and another Vs. State of Jharkhand and another (2010) 7 SCC 677, the FIR can be quashed. It is submitted by him that no sufficient material is available with the prosecution and they failed to collect any evidence so as to formulate the offence alleged against the present petitioners. He has also relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in case of Girdhar Shankar Tawadev Vs. State of Maharashtra (2002) 5 SCC 177, Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and another (2014) 8 SCC 273 and in case of Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of U.P. and another (2014) 2 SCC 01 wherein it is observed by the Supreme Court that in a case of matrimonial disputes/family disputes, a preliminary enquiry may be done so as to ascertain the correctness of the allegations made in the complaint so that the innocent may not be harassed. He has also relied upon a decision of Achin Gupta Vs. State of Haryana and another reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 759 in which the Supreme Court has very categorically observed that registration of offence mechanically in a case of domestic cruelty punishable under Section 498-A of IPC not only against the husband but also against the in- laws has to be tried very cautiously and prosecution should be lodged only after proper enquiry. As such, Shri Khare has submitted that the ingredients for constituting an offence registered against the petitioners, nothing has been collected by the prosecution and only on the basis of false allegations, offence got registered.

7. On the other hand, Shri Joshi, learned counsel appearing for the

M.Cr.C-37396-2024

respondent No.2/complainant has opposed the submissions made by counsel for the petitioners saying that there is no evidence available so as to substantiate that any complaint to the police has been made on 28.02.2024 or not because the document i.e. the complaint made by an Advocate on behalf of the petitioners does not contain any signature and any document so as to substantiate that the complaint has actually been made to the police or not. He has further submitted that this is not the stage when testimony of allegations made by the complainant can be determined. He has submitted that serious allegations were made by the complainant and merely because she is the daughter of a retired District Judge, does not mean that the police has registered the case against the present petitioners even though on the basis of material available it is not made out and instead of refusing to initiate prosecution, under pressure they have registered the offence.

8. The State counsel also opposed the submissions made by counsel for the petitioners and submitted that this Court at this stage cannot conduct a mini trial so as ascertain the correctness of the allegations because from perusal of the complaint, it appears that serious allegations were made not only against the petitioners but also against the husband and, therefore, trial should be allowed to continue and the finding will come after recording the evidence but at this stage, quashing of FIR is not proper

9. Considering the submissions made by counsel for the parties and perusal of record also the view taken by the Supreme Court in the cases on which reliance has been placed, I am of the opinion that the contents made in the complaint and on the basis of which FIR registered, there are serious allegations made by the complainant against the present petitioners. The marriage was solemnized on 19.11.2019 and report was made to the police on 08.09.2023. The complainant at present is residing in India with her parents and her husband is in Brazil. Undisputably, the Supreme Court in number of cases has observed that before

M.Cr.C-37396-2024

registration of offence arising out of the family dispute, the police has to make proper enquiry so as to ascertain the correctness of the allegations made therein but in the present case, FIR has been registered and at present before this Court, there is no material available so as to opine that allegations made by the complainant are false. This Court is also helpless at this stage to determine the correctness of the allegations made in the complaint. The Supreme Court in number of cases has observed that testimony of the witnesses cannot be determined at preliminary stage and while exercising the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and entertaining a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is not appropriate for the High Court to conduct a mini trial or to weigh the sanctity of material available in the case diary. The submission made by Shri Khare that it has become a fashion and also the observation made by the Supreme Court that alleging against the relatives of the husband and implicating them as an accused has become so common but it is the duty of the prosecution to see that no innocent person should be prosecuted and for that, they have to make a proper enquiry. As per Shri Khare, there is no material available so as to constitute an offence alleged against the present petitioners and as per the 161 statement also, the complainant has made an allegation against the maternal aunt but not against the present petitioners. However, from the statement of 161 of Cr.P.C. and other material available in the case diary or in the charge-sheet, I do not find that there is nothing against the present petitioners and prosecution against them is liable to be quashed. Merely because the complainant is the daughter of a judicial officer does not mean that the FIR got registered by creating pressure upon the police. It will be decided during the trial as to whether the allegations are false or not but in pursuance of the view taken by the Supreme Court in case of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Aryan Singh etc. reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 379, this is not the proper stage and it is not a case in which this Court can come to the

M.Cr.C-37396-2024

conclusion that allegations are false and prosecution against the present petitioners cannot be initiated.

10. Thus, I do not find any substance in the submission made by counsel for the petitioners so as to interfere in the matter and to quash the FIR and the subsequent proceedings initiated against the petitioners. The petition, in my opinion, is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed.

(SANJAY DWIVEDI) JUDGE rao

SATYA SAI RAO 2025.05.09 17:29:34 +05'30'