Madhya Pradesh High Court
Arvind Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 October, 2025
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27153
1 MCRC-34345-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 28th OF OCTOBER, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 34345 of 2024
ARVIND SHARMA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sachin Parashar - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Samar Ghuraiya Dy Ga appearing on behalf of Advocate General.
ORDER
The present application has been filed by the applicant seeking the
quashment of FIR dated 7.2.2024, bearing Crime No. 0028/2024, registered
at Police Station Malanpur, District Bhind (M.P.), for alleged offences under
Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, against the present petitioner.
2. Short facts of the case are that respondent No. 2/complainant lodged
a report at Police Station Malanpur, District Bhind, on 07.02.2024, stating
that her daughter Khushboo, aged about 28 years, was engaged to Arvind
Sharma, son of late Shri Shyam Sunder Sharma, resident of B.S.F. Colony,
Gwalior. The engagement was finalized in the presence of one Harendra
Gurjar on 30.04.2023. Since the parents of Arvind Sharma were no longer
alive, the marriage discussions were held with his paternal aunt Meena
Sharma, elder brother Ashish Sharma, and sister-in-law Priyanka Sharma. On
30.04.2023, Arvind Sharma, along with his brother Ashish Sharma, sister-in-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27153
2 MCRC-34345-2024
law Priyanka Sharma, and aunt Meena Sharma, visited the complainant's
residence at Malanpur for the engagement ceremony of Khushboo, which
was performed according to Hindu customs and rituals. Harendra Gurjar was
also present during the ceremony. Upon seeing Khushboo, the family
members approved of the match, and the engagement ceremony was
solemnized. The complainant, as per her financial capacity, gifted
₹1,00,000/-, a gold ring, and a gold chain to Arvind Sharma, and a gold ring
to his aunt Meena Sharma. Additionally, customary gifts of ₹1,000/- each
were presented to the attending family members. The marriage between
Khushboo and Arvind Sharma was thereafter fixed to be solemnized on
26.02.2024 at Malanpur, District Bhind, with all traditional rituals. After the
engagement, the family of the complainant began making arrangements for
the wedding. Her husband and son, Rocky Sharma, booked the caterer and
marriage venue, while on 17.01.2024, Arvind Sharma visited Malanpur and
booked the Jiya Band. Wedding invitations were printed and distributed
among relatives and community members. Subsequently, however, Arvind
Sharma, along with his brother Ashish Sharma, sister-in-law Priyanka
Sharma, and aunt Meena Sharma, allegedly demanded ₹20,00,000/- in cash
and a four-wheeler vehicle as dowry. When the complainant, her husband
Lal Bahadur, her son Rocky, daughter-in-law Sonam, and relative Harendra
Gurjar requested them to reconsider, expressing their inability to meet such
demands and highlighting that wedding invitations had already been
distributed, the accused persons remained adamant in their demand. Upon
refusal to meet their dowry demand, Arvind Sharma, Ashish Sharma, Meena
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27153
3 MCRC-34345-2024
Sharma, and Priyanka Sharma allegedly declined to proceed with the
marriage. Hence, the complainant lodged the FIR.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Police
Authorities after completion of the investigation, has filed a charge-sheet
before the competent Court, and the matter is presently pending
consideration before the learned trial Court. It is further submitted that, in
fact, the applicant has not committed any offence whatsoever, the respondent
no.2/complainant, in collusion with the police authorities, has lodged a false
and fabricated case only with a view to exert undue pressure upon the
applicant. After the engagement was fixed, the conduct of respondent No. 2
and her family members towards the applicant became highly improper and
abusive, and they started making unlawful and unreasonable demands. They
also threatened the applicant and his family members with dire
consequences, including threats to falsely implicate them in a case under the
Dowry Prohibition Act and other criminal proceedings. In this regard, the
applicant, apprehending false implication and intimidation, had submitted a
written complaint before Police Station Maharajpura, District Gwalior, on
30.01.2024. It has further been argued that the alleged demand for a car, as
claimed by the complainant, is wholly false and fabricated. Had there been
any such demand in reality, the marriage alliance itself would not have been
finalized. The false complaint has been lodged by the complainant only with
the intention to exert undue pressure upon the applicant and to extort
unlawful money and property. The allegations levelled in the complaint bear
no relation to the actual facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, as no
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27153
4 MCRC-34345-2024
prima facie case is made out against the applicant, the continuation of the
criminal proceedings pending before the learned Trial Court would amount
to abuse of the process of law. Thus, it was submitted that the proceedings
instituted against the present petitioner deserve to be quashed in view of the
law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matters of Ramesh Kumar
Vs State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2005 SCC (Crl.) 735; Preeti Gupta &
Another vs. State of Jharkhand & Another reported in (2010) 3 SCC (Cri.)
473, Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273 and
G.V.Rao Vs. L.H.V. Prasad (2000) 3 SCC 693. To bolster his submissions,
he has also placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered
in Cr.A. No. 2379 of 2024 [Achin Gupta Vs. The State of Haryana & Anr.,
decided on 03.05.2024].
4. Per contra, Counsel for the respondent/State as well as Counsel for
the respondent No.2 had opposed the submissions so made by counsel for the
petitioners and it was submitted that there are specific allegations against the
present petitioner, therefore, they are not entitled for any relief and inherent
powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised.
5. 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 petitioners under the aforesaid section and, therefore, no interference
is warranted.
6. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. It is well-settled that the inherent powers of this Court under Section
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27153
5 MCRC-34345-2024
528 BNSS to quash FIRs are to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional
cases, primarily when the allegations on their face do not disclose a
cognizable offence, or are wholly absurd, frivolous, or maliciously
motivated. Reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court in the matters of
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, and Neeharika
Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 19 SCC 401,
establishes that interference at the stage of investigation is not justified unless
the allegations are wholly untenable.
8. In the instant case, the allegations are neither inherently improbable
nor manifestly false. After the engagement, the complainant's family made
arrangements for the marriage, including booking the venue, caterer, and
band, and distributing wedding invitations. Subsequently, the accused
persons--Arvind Sharma, Ashish Sharma, Priyanka Sharma, and Meena
Sharma--allegedly demanded ₹20,00,000/- in cash and a four-wheeler as
dowry. Upon the complainant's refusal to fulfil the said demand, the accused
persons purportedly declined to solemnize the marriage, leading the
complainant to lodge the present FIR. At this stage, this Court is confined to
determining whether the complaint, taken on its face, discloses cognizable
offences -- which it clearly does.
9. In light of the above, the petition seeking quashment of FIR
registered at Police Station Malanpur, District Bhind, lacks merit. The FIR
warrants investigation, and any issues of dispute or falsehood in the
allegations are matters to be adjudicated during the trial and not at the
threshold stage.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27153
6 MCRC-34345-2024
10. Accordingly, the petition under Section 528 BNSS is dismissed.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
(aspr)
