[Cites 16, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Praveen Parashar @ Chintu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 February, 2026
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3518
1 MCRC-36848-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 36848 of 2025
PRAVEEN PARASHAR @ CHINTU
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sameer Kumar Shrivastava - Advocate alongwith Shri Rahul
Bansal - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Harish Sharma - Public Prosecutor for the State.
Shri Saurav Sagoriya - Advocate for respondent No.2.
RESERVED ON :- 28/01/2026
DELIVERD ON :- 3/02/2026
ORDER
The present petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashment of F.I.R.
bearing Crime No. 530 of 2022 registered at Police Station Maharajpura,
District Gwalior, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B
and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, along with all consequential proceedings
arising therefrom.
The prosecution case, in brief, is that Smt. Deepa Parashar, aged about
25 years, was married to Praveen Parashar (present petitoner), resident of
Sambhaji Rao Colony, Murar, District Gwalior, on 06.12.2020 according to
Hindu rites and rituals. At the time of marriage, the parents of the deceased
allegedly gave dowry beyond their financial capacity, including household
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3518
2 MCRC-36848-2025
articles such as a double bed, sofa set, refrigerator, and LED television, as
well as gold ornaments weighing about two tolas. It was further alleged that a
gold ring and chain were gifted to the groom and a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- in
cash was also given. It was further alleged that about one month after the
marriage, the deceased was subjected to physical and mental cruelty by her
husband Praveen Parashar (present petitoner), father-in-law Naresh Parashar,
elder brother-in-law Sandeep Parashar, and sister-in-law Hariomwati alias
Guddiya, on account of additional demand of Rs.5,00,000/- in cash and a
four-wheeler vehicle from her parental home. Due to the said harassment, the
deceased submitted a written complaint dated 01.04.2022 at Police Station
Morar against her husband and in-laws. On 17.06.2022 at about 5:00 PM, the
informant Narendra Sharma, father of the deceased, received a telephonic
call from his son-in-law Praveen Parashar (present petitoner) informing him
that the deceased was unwell and admitted to Birla Hospital, Gwalior. When
the informant reached the hospital, the deceased was declared dead by the
attending doctor. On the basis of the said information, a Marg No.25of 2022
under Section 174 CrPC was registered at Police Station Maharajpura,
District Gwalior, and enquiry was initiated. Inquest proceedings were
conducted by the Naib Tehsildar and the post-mortem examination of the
deceased was carried out. As the deceased was a newly married woman, the
Marg enquiry was conducted by the City Superintendent of Police,
Maharajpura. During the course of enquiry, statements of the deceased's
parents, siblings, husband (present petitoner), and other relatives were
recorded. Marriage card, photographs, and the list of dowry articles were
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3518
3 MCRC-36848-2025
seized. It was alleged that despite efforts made by the father of the deceased
to persuade the in-laws, the harassment continued. It was further alleged that
being unable to bear the alleged cruelty and increasing dowry demands, the
deceased became distressed and committed suicide by hanging on
17.06.2022 at about 5:00 PM at her matrimonial home situated at House
No.BL-170, B-Block, D.D. Nagar, Gwalior. On completion of the Marg
enquiry, it was found that the deceased had died an unnatural death within
seven years of her marriage and was allegedly subjected to cruelty and
harassment in connection with dowry demands. Accordingly, the Marg diary
was forwarded for registration of offence, and an FIR was registered against
Praveen Parashar (present petitoner), Naresh Parashar (father-in-law),
Sandeep Parashar, and Hariomwati alias Guddiya for offences punishable
under Sections 498-A, 304-B, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
After registration of FIR, investigation was carried out and charge-
sheet was filed against the present petitioner, who is husband of the
deceased, fatherin-law, brother-in-law (jeth) and sister-in-law (jethani) of the
deceased. After investigation charge-sheet was filed before the trial Court
and trial is pending. Petitioner (husband) takes exception to the criminal
proceeding pending before trial court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted before this Court that the
impugned FIR bearing Crime No. 530 of 2022, registered at Police Station
Maharajpura, District Gwalior, is manifestly illegal, arbitrary, and devoid of
any prima facie evidence implicating the petitioner, as the registration of the
FIR against the petitioner appears to be actuated by mala fide intention to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3518
4 MCRC-36848-2025
harass him and his family, rather than being based on any credible or
material facts. Continuation of proceedings arising from such FIR would
amount to an abuse of the process of law and would cause irreparable
prejudice to him.
It was further submitted that a perusal of the charge-sheet
demonstrates that the deceased, Smt. Deepa Parashar, had a history of
suicidal tendencies and prior to her marriage with the petitioner, the deceased
was in a relationship with one Neeraj Sikarwar, with whom she intended to
marry. Family pressure prevented that marriage from taking place, resulting
in emotional distress and compulsion to marry the petitioner. The deceased's
suicide was caused by her mental state and depression arising from personal
circumstances, and not due to any act of cruelty or harassment by the
petitioner. There exists no material on record to suggest that the petitioner
subjected the deceased to cruelty at any time prior to her death.
It was further submitted that the chat history and photographs
appended with the charge-sheet demonstrate that the deceased had an illicit
relationship with Neeraj Sikarwar, who subsequently married another
woman and the deceased was deeply disturbed and became emotionally over-
possessive due to this development. The chats with his paramour revealed
her despair and despondency, reflecting her desire to marry him. This
emotional turmoil, and not any act of cruelty by the petitioner, caused the
suicide.
It was further submitted that the deceased, Smt. Deepa Parashar, was
married to the petitioner on 06.12.2020 at Bhind and the petitioner is in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3518
5 MCRC-36848-2025
private employment and resides in Gwalior. At the time of the incident, the
petitioner and the deceased were residing separately, as per the expressed
wish of the deceased, at B‑Block, D.D. Nagar, Gwalior and there was no
dispute between husband and wife regarding dowry or domestic matters.
There is no material to suggest that the petitioner committed any overt act of
cruelty or harassment toward the deceased.
It was further submitted that the deceased had filed a written complaint
dated 01.04.2022 at Police Station Maharajpura, nearly two and a half
months before her death on 17.06.2022 and in that complaint, only a passing
reference was made to alleged harassment by the petitioner, without any
specific context. Such omnibus and generalized allegations are insufficient to
establish culpability. The charge-sheet also includes a voice verification
report confirming that the voice in the telephonic conversations recorded on
the deceased's mobile matches that of Neeraj Sikarwar. These materials i.e.
chat history, photographs, and voice verification reports have been fairly
placed by the prosecution before the trial Court and are available for
ascertaining actual culpability.
It was further submitted that the complaint dated 01.04.2022, allegedly
filed by the deceased regarding dowry demand, was neither pursued nor
prosecuted by her. This demonstrates that the complaint was not actionable
and does not constitute evidence of harassment by the petitioner.
It was further submitted that even after the filing of the charge-sheet,
not a single prosecution witness has appeared in the Court to give evidence,
as reflected in the order sheets of the trial Court, which clearly indicated that
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3518
6 MCRC-36848-2025
the allegations were fabricated and were advanced by the deceased's family
to create pressure on the petitioner.
It was further submitted that this Court had already quashed similar
petitions filed by co-accused Sandeep Parashar (brother-in-law) and
Hariomwati Parashar (sister-in-law) vide order dated 14.08.2023 in Criminal
Revision No. 689/2023, and by co-accused Naresh Parashar (father-in-law)
vide order dated 03.01.2024 in M.Cr.C. No. 48638/2023. The petitioner's
case is identical in nature, and the same benefit ought to be extended to him.
It was further submitted that continuation of criminal proceedings
against the petitioner, in the absence of any credible evidence, constitutes an
abuse of the process of law and the alleged FIR has been used as a tool of
harassment rather than as a measure to administer justice, causing mental
anguish and reputational harm to the petitioner and his family. The present
petition has been filed to prevent abuse of process and to secure the ends of
justice and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana vs.
Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335 , and subsequent decisions
had held that the High Court can quash FIRs where allegations, even if taken
at face value, do not prima facie constitute an offence or where continuation
of proceedings would be oppressive. Courts have also repeatedly held that
vague, generalized, and unparticularized allegations cannot justify
harassment of innocent persons. Even in cases involving non-compoundable
offences like cruelty under Section498‑A IPC and dowry death under
Section304‑B IPC, quashment is justified where the prosecution's own
material fails to demonstrate a specific act of cruelty or harassment. In the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3518
7 MCRC-36848-2025
present case, the charge-sheet itself reflects that the deceased's suicide was
due to personal emotional distress unrelated to any act of the petitioner, and
there is no direct evidence connecting him to any cognizable offence.
In view of the foregoing submissions, it was prayed that the FIR
bearing Crime No. 530 of 2022, insofar as it pertains to the petitioner and all
consequential proceedings may be quashed.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor for the State as well as the
counsel for the complainant opposed the petition and prayed for its rejection
by contending that the impugned FIR bearing Crime No. 530 of 2022 has
been registered strictly in accordance with law after due enquiry under
Section 174 CrPC, as the deceased, Smt. Deepa Parashar, died an unnatural
death within seven years of her marriage, and the Marg enquiry revealed
material indicating cruelty and harassment in connection with dowry
demands.
It was further submitted that the deceased was a newly married woman
and her death occurred in suspicious circumstances at her matrimonial home
and during Marg enquiry and investigation, statements of parents and close
relatives of the deceased were recorded, wherein consistent allegations of
dowry demand and harassment were made against the accused persons,
including the present petitioner. The investigation has culminated in filing of
a charge-sheet after collection of material evidence, and therefore, at this
stage, interference by this Court is not warranted.
It was further submitted that the offence under Section 304-B IPC is a
serious and grave offence against society and once the foundational facts,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3518
8 MCRC-36848-2025
namely, death of a woman within seven years of marriage and allegations of
cruelty in connection with dowry demand, are disclosed, the statutory
presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act comes into
operation, which can only be rebutted during trial by leading evidence.
It was further submitted that the defence raised by the petitioner
regarding alleged extra-marital relationship of the deceased, her mental
condition, or suicidal tendencies, is a matter of defence and requires
appreciation of evidence. These aspects cannot be examined at the stage of
quashment, as this Court is not expected to conduct a mini-trial or assess the
probative value of evidence collected during investigation.
It was further submitted that the complaint dated 01.04.2022 filed by
the deceased alleging harassment for dowry cannot be brushed aside merely
on the ground that no further inquiry was conducted on it. The said
complaint forms part of the chain of circumstances demonstrating cruelty and
harassment and supports the prosecution case that the deceased was subjected
to ill-treatment during her matrimonial life.
It was further submitted that the delay in examination of witnesses or
non-appearance of witnesses till date cannot be a ground for quashing the
FIR or charge-sheet. Procedural delays do not ipso facto render the
prosecution case false or fabricated. The trial is pending and witnesses are
yet to be examined in accordance with law.
It was further submitted that the benefit of quashment granted to co-
accused persons cannot automatically be extended to the present petitioner,
as the role attributed to each accused is different and has to be examined
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3518
9 MCRC-36848-2025
independently. Parity cannot be claimed as a matter of right in criminal
proceedings, particularly when allegations against the present petitioner
stand on a different footing.
It was further submitted that the scope of interference under Section
482 CrPC is limited and the inherent powers are to be exercised sparingly
and with great caution. In cases involving serious offences like dowry death,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly cautioned against premature
quashment of proceedings when investigation has disclosed prima facie
material.
Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
It is undisputed that the death of the deceased occurred within seven
years of marriage and was an unnatural death. However, mere fulfillment of
the said condition by itself is not sufficient to attract the offence under
Section 304-B IPC unless there is prima facie material to show that the
deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with dowry
demands soon before her death. Upon close scrutiny of the charge-sheet and
the statements collected during investigation, this Court finds that the
allegations against the present petitioner are vague, omnibus, and lacking in
specific particulars as the prosecution material itself reveals that the deceased
was suffering from emotional distress arising out of her personal relationship
with another person prior to and even after her marriage. The chat history,
call records, photographs, and voice verification report, which form part of
the charge-sheet, clearly indicate that the deceased was deeply disturbed due
to the marriage of her alleged paramour with another woman. These
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3518
10 MCRC-36848-2025
materials lend support to the petitioner's contention that the suicide was a
result of personal emotional turmoil rather than any act of cruelty or dowry
demand attributable to the petitioner.
The complaint dated 01.04.2022 relied upon by the prosecution
contains only a general and casual reference to harassment without any
particulars and was admittedly never pursued by the deceased. Such a vague
allegation, by itself, cannot form the foundation for prosecution under
Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC. Further, this Court cannot lose sight of the
fact that similarly situated co-accused persons have already been granted
relief by this Court by quashing of proceedings, and the case of the present
petitioner stands on an identical footing. Denial of the same relief to the
petitioner would result in manifest injustice.
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as under:-
"482. Saving for inherent power of High Court :-
Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the
inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as
may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code,
or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise
to secure the ends of justice."
The powers of High Court under Section 482 of CrPC are partly
administrative and partly judicial. The Hon'ble Apex Court in State of
Karnataka vs. Muniswami reported in AIR 1977 SC 1489 had held that the
section envisages three circumstances in which the inherent jurisdiction may
be exercised, namely, "to give effect to an order under CrPC, to prevent
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3518
11 MCRC-36848-2025
abuse of the process of the court, and to secure the ends of justice."
The jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC is discretionary. The Court
depending upon the facts of a given case, can always take note of any
miscarriage of justice and prevent the same by exercising its powers under
Section 482 of CrPC. It is true that the said powers are neither limited nor
curtailed by any other provisions of the Code, however, such inherent
powers are to be exercised sparingly and with caution.
It is also settled law that the inherent power under Section 482 of CrPC
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. Authority of the
Court exists for the advancement of justice. 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 by invoking inherent powers in absence of
specific provisions in the Statute.
In the matter of Neeharika Infrastructure v. State of
Maharashtra (2021) 19 SCC 401, a three-Judge Bench of Hon'ble Supreme
Court analyzed the precedent and culled out the relevant principles that
govern the law on quashing of a First Information Report under Section 482
of the CrPC as under:-
"13. From the aforesaid decisions of this Court, right
from the decision of the Privy Council in the case of
Khawaja Nazir Ahmad (supra), the following principles of
law emerge:
13.1. Police has the statutory right and duty under the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3518
12 MCRC-36848-2025
relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure
contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into
cognizable offences;
13.2. Courts would not thwart any investigation into
the cognizable offences;
13.3. However, in cases where no cognizable offence
or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information
report the Court will not permit an investigation to go on;
13.4. The power of quashing should be exercised
sparingly with circumspection, in the 'rarest of rare cases'.
(The rarest of rare cases standard in its application for
quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not to be confused
with the norm which has been formulated in the context of
the death penalty, as explained previously by this Court);
13.5. While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of
which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as
to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the
allegations made in the FIR/complaint;
13.6. Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at
the initial stage;
13.7. Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an
exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule;
13.8. Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping
the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3518
13 MCRC-36848-2025
State operate in two specific spheres of activities. The
inherent power of the court is, however, recognised to secure
the ends of justice or prevent the above of the process by
Section 482 Cr.P.C.
13.9. The functions of the judiciary and the police are
complementary, not overlapping;
13.10. Save in exceptional cases where non-
interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court
and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of
investigation of offences;
13.11. Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court
do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act
according to its whims or caprice;
13.12. The first information report is not an
encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details
relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the
investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not
go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must
be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be
premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts
that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or
that it amounts to abuse of process of law. During or after
investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no
substance in the application made by the complainant, the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3518
14 MCRC-36848-2025
investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary
before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by
the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known
procedure;
13.13. The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very
wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be
cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the
court;
13.14. However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks
fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the
self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly the
parameters laid down by this Court in the cases of R.P.
Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal(supra), has the jurisdiction to
quash the FIR/complaint; and
13.15. When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by
the alleged accused, the court when it exercises the power
under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether or
not the allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of a
cognizable offence and is not required to consider on merits
whether the allegations make out a cognizable offence or not
and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to
investigate the allegations in the FIR."
The parameters for quashing an FIR have been laid down by a two-
Judge Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana v.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3518
15 MCRC-36848-2025
Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 as under:-
"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the
various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV
and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a
series of decisions relating to the exercise of the
extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers
under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and
reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases
by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised
either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or
otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be
possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and
sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid
formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of
cases wherein such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information
report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face
value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie
constitute any offence or make out a case against the
accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report
and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not
disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by
police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3518
16 MCRC-36848-2025
under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section
155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the
FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the
same do not disclose the commission of any offence and
make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute
a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer
without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under
Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or
complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the
basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just
conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding
against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any
of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under
which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution
and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a
specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act,
providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the
aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3518
17 MCRC-36848-2025
with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on
the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and
personal grudge."
In view of the aforesaid dictum, this Court is required to examine
whether, on the basis of the allegations made, any cognizable offence is
prima facie made out against the petitioner so as to compel him to face trial,
or whether the criminal proceedings initiated against him deserve to be
allowed to continue. Upon a careful perusal of the F.I.R. and the material
available on record, no allegation disclosing any criminal act or criminal
intent on the part of the petitioner is discernible. The petitioner's
involvement in the alleged offence is not borne out from the record and
remains wholly unsubstantiated. In the absence of any prima facie evidence,
permitting the criminal proceedings to continue against the petitioner would
amount to subjecting him to unwarranted harassment and would result in a
clear abuse of the process of the criminal justice system
Accordingly, the petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure is allowed. The F.I.R. bearing Crime No. 530 of 2022
registered at Police Station Maharajpura, District Gwalior, for the offences
punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code,
along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, insofar as they
relate to the present petitioner are hereby quashed.
Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3518
18 MCRC-36848-2025
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT GWALIOR,
JUDGE
pwn*
2.5.4.20=b864d1ab4ace2215bfcf3ab301c34d631287f1b1cdd90b4a49f2
65f02d9d593f, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT
GWALIOR,CID - 7064434, postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh,
serialNumber=61b9d129971d2ea4fd4455ed49ea436ea65e26164beee
d89153191c56e98ce21, cn=PAWAN KUMAR
Date: 2026.02.04 11:39:37 +05'30'
