[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
B.P. Sinha vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 3 February, 2026
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4346
1 MCRC-24095-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 3 rd OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 24095 of 2018
B.P. SINHA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Hardayesh Kumar Shukla - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Mohit Shivhare - Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
ORDER
This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the
petitioners seeking quashment of FIR bearing Crime No.19/2018 registered
at Police Station Mahila Thana District Gwalior for offence punishable under
Sections 498-A, 34 of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against
the petitioners and all consequential proceedings arising out of the said FIR
including case No. 1554/2018 pending before learned Judicial Magistrate
First Class Gwalior.
2. As per the prosecution case, Respondent No.2 was married to Shri
Pankaj Kumar Sinha on 22.04.2016 at Gwalior according to Hindu rites. At
the time of marriage, her parents provided dowry articles as per their
financial capacity, including cash, gold and silver ornaments, household
articles, and a Hyundai Xcent car. The husband and his family had sent a list
of demanded articles through WhatsApp, and the husband personally
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4346
2 MCRC-24095-2018
selected items, for which payment was made by her father. Prior to marriage,
Rs.5,00,000/- was taken by the in-laws on 15.03.2016. After the reception
held at Banaras on 25.04.2016, an additional demand of Rs.2,00,000/- and
one gold necklace was made and fulfilled. Immediately after joining her
matrimonial home, she was subjected to taunts, cruelty, and harassment by
her husband and in-laws for bringing insufficient dowry, and continuous
demands for more money were made. She was physically assaulted and
pressured to bring money, due to which her mother transferred Rs.50,000/-
to her husband's account. On several occasions thereafter, including
28.07.2016, 12.08.2016, and 31.01.2017, her husband allegedly demanded
Rs.5,00,000/- and quarreled or assaulted her and her parents. Despite a
written apology given by the husband at Police Station Kadma, harassment
continued. On 27.10.2017, the husband and mother-in-law allegedly
assaulted her brutally, pushed her out of the matrimonial home, and
threatened not to allow her to return unless she brought Rs.5,00,000/- in
cash. She has been residing at her parental home since then. Attempts at
reconciliation and counseling on 22.02.2018 also failed, as the husband and
in-laws left without taking her. On the basis of these allegations of dowry
demand, cruelty, and physical abuse by the husband and his family members,
the impugned FIR was lodged.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner nos. 1 to
4 are not residing with respondent no. 2 and her husband and have been
falsely implicated only on account of their relationship with the husband.
Respondent no. 2 along with her husband, Pankaj Kumar Sinha, was residing
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4346
3 MCRC-24095-2018
at B-204, Pragati Vihar, B.H. Area, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand. Petitioner nos. 1
and 2 are permanently and separately residing at Sasaram, Bihar, which is at
a considerable distance from Jamshedpur. They have no day-to-day
interaction with the respondent no. 2 and no occasion to subject her to any
alleged cruelty. The present prosecution has been maliciously instituted
merely because they are close relatives of the husband.
4. It is further submitted that petitioner no. 3, Amit Kumar, who is the
brother of the husband, is serving in the Indian Air Force and is posted at
Udhampur, Jammu and Kashmir. He does not reside with respondent no. 2
or with her husband. Being a member of the armed forces, he can visit home
only on sanctioned leave. As per the leave certificate, he had come only for
two days, i.e., from 22.04.2016 to 23.04.2016, at the time of marriage. He
did not attend the reception ceremony. Therefore, the allegation that
petitioner no. 3 demanded dowry at the reception is demonstrably false,
fabricated and concocted, and made solely to harass him.
5. It is also submitted that petitioner no. 4, Smt. Sapna, is already
married and is living separately with her husband at her matrimonial home in
Azamgarh. She has no concern whatsoever with the matrimonial affairs of
respondent no. 2. Her implication in the present case is solely on the ground
that she is a relative of the husband and is a clear abuse of the process of law.
6. Learned counsel further submits that respondent no. 2 is in the habit
of lodging false complaints against her husband and his family members. On
account of her repeated threats and conduct, the husband had earlier filed a
complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur under
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4346
4 MCRC-24095-2018
Section 39 Cr.P.C., stating that his wife was attempting to falsely implicate
him and his relatives in criminal cases. He had also submitted a complaint
before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jamshedpur on 02.11.2017
narrating the same apprehension.
7. It is further submitted that the husband had also filed a petition for
restitution of conjugal rights before the Family Court at Jamshedpur on
18.12.2017, which itself demonstrates his bona fide intention to continue the
matrimonial relationship. In fact, respondent no. 2 voluntarily deserted the
matrimonial home. She is of quarrelsome nature, used to consume liquor
against the wishes of the husband, and frequently created disturbances in the
household. Despite being advised by the husband to mend her ways, she
continued to quarrel and repeatedly threatened to implicate the husband and
his family members in false criminal cases.
8. It is submitted that on the night of 26/27.10.2017, respondent no. 2
assaulted petitioner no. 2, Smt. Laxmina Devi, causing injuries on her hand.
In respect of the said incident, a criminal case was registered against
respondent no. 2 under Sections 323, 324, 379, 504 and 506-B of the Indian
Penal Code. After coming to know of the said proceedings, respondent no. 2,
as a counterblast and with malafide intention, lodged the present FIR under
Section 498-A/34 IPC against the petitioners. The timing and circumstances
clearly establish that the FIR is retaliatory and vexatious in nature.
9. It is also submitted that even as per the allegations made in the FIR,
the alleged acts of cruelty are stated to have occurred at Jamshedpur,
Jharkhand. No part of the alleged cause of action is shown to have arisen at
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4346
5 MCRC-24095-2018
Gwalior. Therefore, Mahila Thana Padav, Gwalior, lacks territorial
jurisdiction to entertain and register the FIR, rendering the entire proceedings
without authority of law. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it
is submitted that the FIR in question is an abuse of the process of law,
actuated by malice, and does not disclose the commission of any cognizable
offence against the petitioners. The continuation of criminal proceedings
would amount to gross miscarriage of justice. Hence, it is prayed that the
impugned FIR and all consequential proceedings be quashed in the interest
of justice.
10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State, opposing the
petition, submits that the impugned FIR discloses clear, specific and detailed
allegations of continuous cruelty, physical assault and persistent dowry
demands against the husband and his family members, which squarely attract
the ingredients of Sections 498-A and 34 IPC as well as Section 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act, and therefore a prima facie cognizable offence is
made out. It is contended that at the stage of considering a petition under
Section 482 Cr.P.C., this Hon'ble Court cannot undertake a meticulous
examination of evidence or adjudicate upon disputed questions of fact,
including the plea of alibi, separate residence, or the alleged falsity of
accusations, as these matters are within the domain of trial. The State further
submits that mere assertions of separate residence or employment outside the
matrimonial home do not ipso facto absolve the petitioners when specific
allegations of participation in dowry demand and harassment have been
levelled. The defence that the FIR is a counterblast or motivated is also a
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4346
6 MCRC-24095-2018
matter of evidence and cannot be a ground for quashment at the threshold. It
is further argued that the FIR indicates that part of the cause of action arose
at Gwalior, where the marriage took place and dowry articles were given,
thereby conferring territorial jurisdiction. Reliance is placed on the settled
legal position that inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are to be
exercised sparingly and only in rarest of rare cases, and since the allegations
disclose a cognizable offence and require proper investigation and trial, the
petition deserves to be dismissed.
11. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
12. The allegations in the impugned FIR, when read as a whole,
disclose that respondent No.2 was subjected to continuous cruelty,
humiliation and harassment on account of dowry demands by her husband
and his family members. The FIR narrates specific instances regarding
payment of substantial amounts of money prior to marriage, further demands
after marriage, physical assaults, coercion to bring additional amounts from
her parents, and her eventual ouster from the matrimonial home with a
demand of Rs.5,00,000/-. The narration is not vague or omnibus in nature but
contains detailed assertions about the conduct of the husband and his
relatives, including the petitioners herein.
13. The principal contention of the petitioners is that petitioner Nos.1
and 2 reside separately at Sasaram, Bihar, petitioner No.3 is serving in the
Indian Air Force and was posted at Udhampur, Jammu and Kashmir, and
petitioner No.4 is a married sister living at her matrimonial home in
Azamgarh, and therefore they could not have participated in the alleged acts
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4346
7 MCRC-24095-2018
of cruelty. These submissions essentially raise disputed questions of fact.
The plea of separate residence, employment at a distant place, or limited
opportunity to visit the matrimonial home are matters of defence which
require evidence and cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482
Cr.P.C. At this stage, the Court is required to proceed on the basis of the
allegations made in the FIR and not on the basis of the defence put forward
by the accused.
14. The FIR attributes participation of the husband's family members
in the demand of dowry and harassment of the complainant. Whether such
allegations are ultimately proved or not is a matter for trial. It is well settled
that where the allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable
offence, the inherent powers of the High Court should not be exercised to
stifle a legitimate prosecution. The Court cannot conduct a roving enquiry
into the truthfulness of the allegations or weigh the evidence at the threshold.
15. The contention that the FIR has been lodged as a counterblast to
proceedings initiated by the husband or his family members also cannot be
accepted as a ground for quashment. The existence of earlier complaints or
cross-cases is again a matter of evidence. Motive, malice, or alleged
retaliatory conduct are issues which require proper appreciation during trial
and cannot be conclusively determined in a petition under Section 482
Cr.P.C.
16. The scope of interference under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure is extremely limited. The inherent powers of the Court
are to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection, and only in exceptional
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4346
8 MCRC-24095-2018
circumstances, either to prevent abuse of the process of law or to secure the
ends of justice. Where the allegations, on their face, disclose the essential
ingredients of the offences alleged and warrant investigation and
adjudication, the Court ought to be slow and reluctant to quash the
proceedings at the threshold.
17. In the present case, the FIR discloses specific allegations of dowry
demand, cruelty and physical assault. The defence put forth by the petitioners
pertains to disputed questions of fact and cannot be examined in these
proceedings. No case is made out to show that the FIR is patently absurd,
inherently improbable, or barred by law so as to warrant exercise of inherent
jurisdiction.
18. Consequently, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
present petition is devoid of merit. Accordingly, the petition stands
dismissed.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
ojha
