[Cites 14, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr Anubha Gupta vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4589
1 MCRC-32310-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA
ON THE 3 rd OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 32310 of 2023
DR ANUBHA GUPTA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rajeev Shrivastava -Advocate for petitioners.
Shri Atul Kumar Sharma - PP for the State.
Ms. Richa Bhadoriya- Advocate for respondent No.2.
ORDER
This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., seeking
quashment of FIR dated 20.06.2023 registered at Crime No.24/2023 at
Mahila Police Thana, Morena, for the offence punishable under Sections
498A, 323, 294, 506, 34 of IPC and all consequential proceedings arising
therefrom, so far as they relate to the present petitioners, who are sisters-in-
law of the complainant.
Brief facts of the case are that the marriage of the complainant
Anupama Gupta was solemnized with Ansul Gupta on 29.11.2012 as per
Hindu rites and rituals. Petitioner No.2 Aparna Gupta was already married in
the year 2007 and petitioner No.1 Anubha Gupta was married in 2009, much
prior to the marriage of the complainant, and both were residing at their
respective matrimonial homes at Jaipur and Shivpuri.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4589
2 MCRC-32310-2023
O n 20.06.2023 , the complainant lodged a written complaint alleging
persistent demand of dowry, mental and physical cruelty, abuse, threats and
instigation by her husband, mother-in-law and present petitioners. On the
basis of the said complaint, FIR was registered. After investigation, charge-
sheet has been filed against all the accused persons including the petitioners.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are
married sisters-in-law, residing separately at their matrimonial homes prior
to the marriage of the complainant and, therefore, had no occasion to harass
or demand dowry. The FIR contains only omnibus and vague
allegations without any specific overt act attributed to the petitioners. The
alleged demand of dowry pertains to the year 2013, whereas the FIR was
lodged in 2023, hence prosecution is barred by limitation. Merely being
named in the FIR without specific role amounts to misuse of Section 498-A
of IPC, as deprecated by the Supreme Court in Preeti Gupta v. State of
Jharkhand (2010) 7 SCC 667 .. The petitioners are suffering undue
harassment, mental agony and hardship due to pendency of criminal
proceedings, though they are innocent.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that the
petition involves suppression and misrepresentation of material facts, hence
deserves dismissal. The FIR discloses specific and continuous allegations of
dowry demand, mental cruelty, instigation and humiliation against the
petitioners. Cruelty under Section 498-A IPC is a continuing offence, and the
last incident occurred in 2022, therefore limitation does not apply. Separate
residence does not absolve the petitioners, as cruelty can be inflicted through
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4589
3 MCRC-32310-2023
instigation, influence, phone calls and visits. The truthfulness of allegations
is a matter of trial , which cannot be examined in a petition under Section 482
Cr.P.C.
Heard counsel for the rival parties and perused the entire record with
due care.
The law regarding exercise of inherent powers is well settled. The
Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal , 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 ,
has laid down the categories where quashing may be permissible. However,
it has been consistently held that such power must be exercised sparingly and
with great caution.
In Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra , (2021) 6
SCC 73, the Supreme Court has categorically held: "At the stage of
quashing, the Court is not required to conduct a mini trial or evaluate the
truthfulness of the allegations.
The contention that the petitioners were residing separately cannot, by
itself, be a ground for quashing proceedings. The Supreme Court in K. Subba
Rao v. State of Telangana, (2018) 14 SCC 452 , held that:
"Physical absence from the matrimonial home does not ipso
facto exonerate a relative from the offence of cruelty if allegations
of instigation or active participation exist."
Similarly, in U. Suvetha v. State , (2009) 6 SCC 757 , it was held that
the role of relatives must be examined during trial when allegations disclose
participation.
In the present case, the FIR specifically alleges instigation,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4589
4 MCRC-32310-2023
humiliation, support to dowry demand and mental cruelty by the petitioners.
Hence, this contention cannot be accepted at this stage.
A bare reading of the FIR shows that the petitioners are specifically
named and attributed with acts of cruelty, demand of scooty, abuse and
instigation. Whether these allegations are ultimately proved or not is a matter
of evidence.
In Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander , (2012) 9 SCC 460, the Supreme
Court held:
"If the allegations prima facie constitute an offence, the
Court should not quash the proceedings merely because the
defence claims them to be false."
The offence under Section 498-A IPC is a continuing offence. The
Supreme Court in Vanka Radhamanohari v. Vanka Venkata Reddy , (1993) 3
SCC 4, held that cruelty to a married woman is a continuing offence and
limitation does not bar prosecution if cruelty continues.
In the present case, allegations extend up to 2022, and FIR was lodged
in 2023, hence the plea of limitation is misconceived.
There is no quarrel with the proposition laid down in Preeti Gupta v.
State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 667 . However, the Supreme Court itself
clarified that quashing is justified only when allegations are absurd,
inherently improbable or mala fide. In the present case, the allegations
cannot be said to be inherently improbable or absurd at this stage.
It is undisputed that after investigation, charge-sheet has been filed.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4589
5 MCRC-32310-2023
The Supreme Court in Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar v. State of
Maharashtra, (2019) 14 SCC 350, held that once charge-sheet is filed and
prima facie case exists, interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is
unwarranted.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the allegations
are omnibus, but from perusal of the records, this Court finds that the
allegations are specific and chronological. The allegations are even
corroborated by the FIR and statements of the complainant herself and her
father too. It is also clear from the records that the complainant has earlier
also had lodged a complaint regarding cruelty and harassment by her in-laws
in the year 2015, which culminated into compromise. Therefore, validity of
the instant charges are a matter of trial, as prima facie commission of alleged
offences is made out.
In the instant matter, charge-sheet has been filed, therefore, no
interference is warranted in the present facts and circumstances of the case as
the investigation is over. Therefore, the validity of the charges alleged
against the petitioners becomes a matter of trial and must be decided then
and there only.
The FIR discloses prima facie ingredients of the offence under Section
498-A IPC against the petitioners. The petitioners are named accused , and
allegations are not purely vague or omnibus. Grounds raised regarding
separate residence, falsity of allegations and inconvenience are matters of
trial.
Accordingly, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. It is clarified
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4589
6 MCRC-32310-2023
that the observations made herein are only for the purpose of deciding this
petition and shall not influence the trial Court on merits.
No order as to costs.
(RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA )
JUDGE
Vishal
