Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vikram Rawat vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 October, 2025
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27300
1 MCRC-2556-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 29th OF OCTOBER, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 2556 of 2024
VIKRAM RAWAT AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Madan Mohan Tripathi - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Mohit Shivhare - GA for the respondent/State.
Shri Sankalp Sharma - Advocate for the respondent No.2.
ORDER
The present petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashment of FIR
dated 19.09.2023 bearing crime No.268/2023 registered at Police Station
Mahila Thana, District Gwalior under Sections 498A, 294, 506 & 34 of IPC
and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
As per prosecution story, the complainant/respondent No.2 lodged an
FIR stating that her marriage with petitioner No.1 was solemnized on
02.05.2022 according to Hindu ritual/rites at Sanskar Vatika. Her father
spent ₹35,00,000/- towards the marriage, including cash, gold, silver, and
other dowry items but after the marriage, the complainant was harassed and
taunted by the petitioners for giving insufficient dowry. She was repeatedly
demanded to provide a Hyundai Creta vehicle and ₹15,00,000/- in cash.
Despite her parents' inability to fulfill the demand, the petitioners verbally
abused her and her family and on 19.02.2023, she was allegedly thrown out
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27300
2 MCRC-2556-2024
of her matrimonial home by petitioner No.1 and his parents and threatened
with dire consequences if she returned without meeting the dowry
demands. On the basis of these allegations, FIR No. 268/2023 dated
19.09.2023 was registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Padav, Gwalior,
under Sections 498A, 294, 506 & 34 of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioner No.1 is
the husband and petitioner Nos.2 & 3 are father & mother in-law of
respondent No.2/complainant and are peaceful citizens. The FIR is false,
baseless, and an abuse of the law and has been lodged on fabricated
grounds. It is further submitted that the FIR was lodged as a counterblast to
the divorce petition, which was filed by petitioner No.1. It is further
submitted that no specific allegations are made against the petitioners and
that the complainant is involved in a relationship with a third person. Further,
it is argued that the complainant's allegations are afterthoughts and do not
constitute any offense. The allegations levelled in the complaint bear no
relation to the actual facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, as no
prima facie case is made out against the applicant. It was thus prayed that the
aforesaid FIR be quashed.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the petition and had
prayed for its rejection.
Learned counsel for respondent No.2 also opposed the petition and has
placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Taramani
Parakh v. State of M.P. and Others , (2015) 11 SCC 260 and submitted
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27300
3 MCRC-2556-2024
that where an FIR or complaint contains specific allegations which, if true,
make out an offense, it cannot be quashed at the initial stage merely because
the allegations are disputed.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
From perusal of the FIR and other material, it is clear that the
complainant has made specific allegations against the petitioners. These
include harassment, demands for dowry in cash and kind, verbal abuse,
threats to life, and eviction from the matrimonial home. The FIR even
specifies dates and amounts, which prima facie constitute offenses under
Sections 498A, 506, and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Quashing of FIR
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is an extraordinary remedy and should be
exercised sparingly. In the present case, the FIR contains detailed
allegations, and it is not the role of this Court at this stage to decide disputed
facts.
In view of the above and in light of the Supreme Court judgment in
Taramani Parakh (supra), the petition for quashing FIR No. 268/2023 is
dismissed. The investigation shall continue as per law, and the petitioners are
free to raise all their contentions during trial.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
neetu
