[Cites 19, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mukesh Singh Som vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 February, 2026
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4183
1 MCRC-50116-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR
ON THE 10th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 50116 of 2024
MUKESH SINGH SOM AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Anuj Bhargava - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Gaurav Rawat - Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Shri Raghuveer Singh Khinchi - Advocate for the respondent [R-2].
ORDER
This petition u/S 482 of the Cr.P.C. is filed for quashment of FIR
bearing Crime No. 250/2024 alongwith consequential proceedings registered
at P.S. Nanakheda Distt. Ujjain for offence punishable u/S 498A and 34 of
IPC against the petitioners - Mukesh Singh Som, Nisha Som, Durdaman
Singh Chouhan and Madhu Chouhan
2. The exposition of facts giving rise to present petition is as under:
a. Petitioner/complainant - Ruchi Som W/o Late
Chandraparatap Singh Som submitted a written complaint to the P.S.
Nanakheda alleging that she was married to Chandrapratap Singh Som
on 15.01.2020 as per Hind Rites and Rituals. Her parents have given
household articles in dowry at the time of marriage. Her Maternal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4183
2 MCRC-50116-2024
Uncle-in-law Duradman Singh Chouhan, Maternal Aunt Madhu
Chouhan who used to visit her maternal home alongwith her father-in-
law, mother-in-law harassed her mentally and physically for bringing
inadequate dowry. On 28.08.2023, her husband Chandrapratap Singh
Chouhan had expired. After the death of her husband, her Maternal
Uncle-in-law Duradman Singh Chouhan, Maternal Aunt Madhu
Chouhan and her father-in-law, mother-in-law constantly harassed her
for bringing inadequate dowry and also taunt her for the death of her
husband. She reported the matter to P.S. Nanakheda Distt. Ujjain. On
such allegations, P.S. Nankheda registered FIR for offence punishable
u/S 498A and 34 of IPC against Mukesh Singh, Nisha Som,
Durdaman Singh Chouhan and Madhu Chouhan. The final report has
been filed on completion of investigation.
b. Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ujjain, framed
charges for offence punishable u/S 498A and 34 of IPC against all the
accused vide order dated 11.03.2025. The trial is pending for evidence.
3 . The quashing of FIR and consequential proceedings is sought in
present petition mainly on the following grounds:
(i) Petitioners have no interference in the life of respondent no.2
and her husband as they are living separately.
(ii) No specific dates and role of petitioners was mentioned in the
complaint.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4183
3 MCRC-50116-2024
(iii) Ingredients of offence punishable u/S 498A are not made out
from the allegations in the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in addition to the grounds
mentioned in the petition submits that general and omnibus allegations have
been made against the petitioners - Maternal Uncle-in-law Duradman Singh
Chouhan, Maternal Aunt Madhu Chouhan, father-in-law Mukesh Singh Som
and mother-in-law Nisha Som. The respondent no.2/complainant has alleged
mental and physical harassment by the respondents for inadequate dowry.
However, no specific date or specific incident has been mentioned by the
petitioner in the written complaint filed by the respondent no. 2 or her
statement recorded u/S 161 of Cr.P.C. There is delay in lodging of FIR. The
alleged offence was not prima-facie made out. Petitioner no.1 - Mukesh
Singh Som is working on the post Tracer( Anurekhak) in the Public Works
Department Sub Division, Mahidpur Distt. Ujjain as per the Certificate
issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Public Works Department, Block
Mahidpur). Petitioners no. 3 and 4, Maternal Uncle-in-law Duradman Singh
Chouhan, Maternal Aunt Madhu Chouhan are residing in a separate
residence at Dabri Pitha, Ujjain. Petitioner no.4 - Madhu Chouhan is working
as Middle School Teacher in Govt. Higher Secondary School, Barukhedi
Mahidpur Road, Development Block Mahidpur Distt. Ujjain since
16.09.2002 as per the Certificate issued by the Principal of the school. All
the family members have been implicated malafide to wreck vengeance. To
bolster his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the
judgment of Apex Court in the cases of Neelu Chopra and Others Vs. Bharti
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4183
4 MCRC-50116-2024
reported in (2009) 10 SCC 184, Preeti Gupta Vs. State of Jharkhand reported
in (2010) 7 SCC 667, Geeta Mehrotra Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
Another reported in (2012) 10 SCC 741, Seenivasan Vs. State by Inspector
of Police and Another reported in (2019) 2 SCC 642, Achin Gupta Vs. State
of Haryana and Another reported in (2025) 3 SCC 756.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State ably assisted
by learned counsel for the respondent no.2 contends that specific
allegations have been made with regard to mental and physical harassment of
the complainant in relation to demand of dowry by the petitioners. therefore,
no ground is made out for quashing of proceedings. The petition is meritless
and deserves to be dismissed.
6. Heard, learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. The Supreme Court in case of State of Haryana vs. Ch. Bhajan
Lal, reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 after an elaborate consideration of the
matter and after referring to its various earlier decisions, has observed in para
108 as under:-
''108. 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 channelized 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4183
5 MCRC-50116-2024
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 F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an
investigation by police officers under Section 156(1)of the Code except 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 F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but
constitute only a noncognizable 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."
8. In the case of Neeharika Infrastructure Vs State of Maharashtra
reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 315 , a Three Judge Bench of the Supreme
Court reiterated the principles laid down in the case of Bhajanlal (supra) and
held that while the Courts ought to be cautious in exercising powers under
Section 482, they do have the power to quash the proceedings. The test is
whether or not, the allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of a
cognizable offence. The Court should not enter into merits of the allegations
or trench upon the lawful power of Investigating Agency to investigate into
the allegations involving commission of a cognizable offence.
9. The Supreme Court in the case of Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal
Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330 , laid down the steps to be followed for exercise
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4183
6 MCRC-50116-2024
of jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, for quashing of proceedings as
under:-
''29. The issue being examined in the instant case is the jurisdiction of the High
Court under Section 482 CrPC, if it chooses to quash the initiation of the
prosecution against an accused at the stage of issuing process, or at the stage of
committal, or even at the stage of framing of charges. These are all stages before the
commencement of the actual trial. The same parameters would naturally be
available for later stages as well. The power vested in the High Court under Section
482 CrPC, at the stages referred to hereinabove, would have far-reaching
consequences inasmuch as it would negate the prosecution's/complainant's case
without allowing the prosecution/complainant to lead evidence. Such a
determination must always be rendered with caution, care and circumspection. To
invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC the High Court has to be
fully satisfied that the material produced by the accused is such that would lead to
the conclusion that his/their defence is based on sound, reasonable, and indubitable
facts; the material produced is such as would rule out and displace the assertions
contained in the charges levelled against the accused; and the material produced is
such as would clearly reject and overrule the veracity of the allegations contained in
the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant. It should be sufficient to
rule out, reject and discard the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant,
without the necessity of recording any evidence. For this the material relied upon by
the defence should not have been refuted, or alternatively, cannot be justifiably
refuted, being material of sterling and impeccable quality. The material relied upon
by the accused should be such as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and
condemn the actual basis of the accusations as false. In such a situation, the judicial
conscience of the High Court would persuade it to exercise its power under Section
482 CrPC to quash such criminal proceedings, for that would prevent abuse of
process of the court, and secure the ends of justice.
30. Based on the factors canvassed in the foregoing paragraphs, we would delineate
the following steps to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashment raised by an
accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 CrPC:
30.1 Step one: whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable,
and indubitable i.e. the material is of sterling and impeccable quality?
30.2. Step two: whether the material relied upon by the accused would rule out the
assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused i.e. the material is
sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint i.e.
the material is such as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn
the factual basis of the accusations as false?
30.3 Step three: whether the material relied upon by the accused has not been
refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such that it cannot be
justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant?
30.4. Step four: whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of
process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice?
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4183
7 MCRC-50116-2024
30.5. If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, the judicial conscience of the
High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal proceedings in exercise of
power vested in it under Section 482 CrPC. Such exercise of power, besides doing
justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be
wasted in holding such a trial (as well as proceedings arising therefrom) specially
when it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused.''
10. In the case of Preeti Gupta and Another Vs. State of Jharkhand
and Another reported in (2010) 7 SCC 667 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
expressing concern over the rapid growth of matrimonial litigation, had
observed that most of the complaints under Section 498-A of IPC are filed in
the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. Many
such complaints are not even bonafide and are filed with oblique motive.
Therefore, the allegation needs to be scrutinized with great care and
circumspection, especially against the husband's relatives who are living in
different cities and never visited or rarely visited the matrimonial home of
the complainant.
11. In the case of Neelu Chopra and Another Vs. Bharti reported in
(2009) 10 SCC 184 , the Supreme Court observed that mere mentioning the
allegations for making out alleged offence is not sufficient and particulars of
offence committed by each accused and role played by them in committing
that offence need to be specifically stated.
12. Recently, in case of Dara lakshmi Narayana Vs. State of
Telangana reported in (2025) 3 SCC 735 , it was observed that-
30. The inclusion of Section 498-AIPC by way of an amendment was intended to
curb cruelty inflicted on a woman by her husband and his family, ensuring swift
intervention by the State. However, in recent years, as there have been a notable rise
in matrimonial disputes across the country, accompanied by growing discord and
tension within the institution of marriage, consequently, there has been a growing
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4183
8 MCRC-50116-2024
tendency to misuse provisions like Section 498- AIPC as a tool for unleashing
personal vendetta against the husband and his family by a wife. Making vague and
generalised allegations during matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinised, will lead to
the misuse of legal processes and an encouragement for use of arm twisting tactics
by a wife and/or her family. Sometimes, recourse is taken to invoke Section 498-A
IPC against the husband and his family in order to seek compliance with the
unreasonable demands of a wife. Consequently, this Court has, time and again,
cautioned against prosecuting the husband and his family in the absence of a clear
prima facie case against them.
33. Further, this Court in Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 667 held
that the courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these
complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideratio nwhile dealing with
matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment by the husband's close relatives
who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place
where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The
allegations of the complainant are required to be scrutinised with great care and
circumspection.
34. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the impugned FIR No. 82 of 2022 filed by
Respondent 2 was initiated with ulterior motives to settle personal scores and
grudges against Appellant 1 and his family members i.e. Appellants 2 to 6 herein.
Hence, the present case at hand falls within Category (7) of illustrative parameters
highlighted in Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 :
1992 SCC (Cri) 426] . Therefore, the High Court, in the present case, erred in not
exercising the powers available to it under Section 482CrPC and thereby failed to
prevent abuse of the Court's process by continuing the criminal prosecution against
the appellants.
13. In the matter of Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana , reported in
(2025) 3 SCC 756 , it was observed that-
28. The learned counsel appearing for Respondent 2 as well as the learned counsel
appearing for the State submitted that the High Court was justified in not embarking
upon an enquiry as regards the truthfulness or reliability of the allegations in exercise
of its inherent power under Section 482CrPC as once there are allegations disclosing
the commission of a cognizable offence then whether they are true or false should be
left to the trial court to decide.
29. In the aforesaid context, we should look into Category 7 as indicated by this
Court in Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992
SCC (Cri) 426] . Category 7 as laid reads thus : (SCC p. 379, para 102)
"102. ... (7) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide
and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4183
9 MCRC-50116-2024
for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to
private and personal grudge."
30. We are of the view that Category 7 referred to above should be taken into
consideration and applied in a case like the one on hand a bit liberally. If the Court is
convinced by the fact that the involvement by the complainant of her husband and his
close relatives is with an oblique motive then even if the FIR and the charge-sheet
disclose the commission of a cognizable offence the Court with a view to doing
substantial justice should read in between the lines the oblique motive of the
complainant and take a pragmatic view of the matter.
31. If the submission canvassed by the counsel appearing for Respondent 2 and the
State is to be accepted mechanically then in our opinion the very conferment of the
inherent power by CrPC upon the High Court would be rendered otiose. We are
saying so for the simple reason that if the wife on account of matrimonial disputes
decides to harass her husband and his family members then the first thing, she would
ensure is to see that proper allegations are levelled in the first information report.
Many times the services of professionals are availed for the same and once the
complaint is drafted by a legal mind, it would be very difficult thereafter to weed out
any loopholes or other deficiencies in the same. However, that does not mean that the
Court should shut its eyes and raise its hands in helplessness, saying that whether true
or false, there are allegations in the first information report and the charge-sheet
papers disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. If the allegations alone as
levelled, more particularly in the case like the one on hand, are to be looked into or
considered then why the investigating agency thought it fit to file a closure report
against the other co-accused? There is no answer to this at the end of the learned
counsel appearing for the State. We say so, because allegations have been levelled
not only against the appellant herein but even against his parents, brother and sister.
If that be so, then why the police did not deem it fit to file charge-sheet against the
other co-accused? It appears that even the investigating agency was convinced that
the FIR was nothing but an outburst arising from a matrimonial dispute.
32. Many times, the parents including the close relatives of the wife make a mountain
out of a molehill. Instead of salvaging the situation and making all possible
endeavours to save the marriage, their action either due to ignorance or on account of
sheer hatred towards the husband and his family members, brings about complete
destruction of marriage on trivial issues. The first thing that comes in the mind of the
wife, her parents and her relatives is the police, as if the police is the panacea of all
evil. No sooner the matter reaches up to the police, then even if there are fair chances
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4183
10 MCRC-50116-2024
of reconciliation between the spouses, they would get destroyed. The foundation of a
sound marriage is tolerance, adjustment and respecting one another. Tolerance to
each other's fault to a certain bearable extent has to be inherent in every marriage.
Petty quibbles, trifling differences are mundane matters and should not be
exaggerated and blown out of proportion to destroy what is said to have been made in
the heaven. The Court must appreciate that all quarrels must be weighed from that
point of view in determining what constitutes cruelty in each particular case, always
keeping in view the physical and mental conditions of the parties, their character and
social status. A very technical and hypersensitive approach would prove to be
disastrous for the very institution of the marriage. In matrimonial disputes the main
sufferers are the children. The spouses fight with such venom in their heart that they
do not think even for a second that if the marriage would come to an end, then what
will be the effect on their children. Divorce plays a very dubious role so far as the
upbringing of the children is concerned. The only reason why we are saying so is that
instead of handling the whole issue delicately, the initiation of criminal proceedings
would bring about nothing but hatred for each other. There may be cases of genuine
ill-treatment and harassment by the husband and his family members towards the
wife. The degree of such ill-treatment or harassment may vary. However, the police
machinery should be resorted to as a measure of last resort and that too in a very
genuine case of cruelty and harassment. The police machinery cannot be utilised for
the purpose of holding the husband at ransom so that he could be squeezed by the
wife at the instigation of her parents or relatives or friends. In all cases, where wife
complains of harassment or ill-treatment, Section 498-AIPC cannot be applied
mechanically. No FIR is complete without Sections 506(2) and 323IPC. Every
matrimonial conduct, which may cause annoyance to the other, may not amount to
cruelty. Mere trivial irritations, quarrels between spouses, which happen in day-to-
day married life, may also not amount to cruelty.
35. In one of the recent pronouncements of this Court in Mahmood Ali v. State of
U.P., (2023) 15 SCC 488, authored by one of us (J.B. Pardiwala, J.), the legal
principle applicable apropos Section 482 CrPC was examined. Therein, it was
observed that when an accused comes before the High Court, invoking either the
inherent power under Section 482 CrPC or the extraordinary jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution, to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed,
essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious
or instituted with the ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance, then in such
circumstances, the High Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little
more closely. It was further observed that it will not be enough for the Court to look
into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4183
11 MCRC-50116-2024
whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or
not as, in frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the court owes a duty to look into many
other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above
the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection, to try and read
between the lines.
14. The material on record is examined in the light of the aforesaid
propositions of law, .
15. The complainant was married to Chandrapratap Singh Som on
15.01.2020. The husband of the complainant Ruchi Som died on 28.03.2023.
Thereafter, present FIR was lodged on 31.05.2024. No complaint was made
during liftime of Chandrapratap. The couple was living in Ujjain. The
general and omnibus allegations of harassment by father-in-law, mother-in-
law and maternal father-in-law(mama sasur) and maternal-aunt-in-law(Mausi
saas) regarding inadequate dowry have been made to allege cruelty as
defined in Section 498A of IPC. No specific incident, conduct or role of
petitioners - Maternal Uncle-in-law Duradman Singh Chouhan, Maternal
Aunt Madhu Chouhan and father-in-law Mukesh Singh Som, mother-in-law
Nisha Som regarding mental and physical harassment amounting to cruelty is
made out from the contents of the FIR or the statement of the complainant
recorded u/Ss. 161 of Cr.P.C.
16. The implication of father-in-law and mother-in-law, who are
living separately from the complainant and the inordinate delay in lodging
the complaint also creates question mark on veracity of such general and
omnibus allegations. There is no material to suggest interference in married
life of complainant by petitioner no.3 and 4 i.e. maternal Uncle-in-law and
Maternal Aunt-in-law as they, being distant relatives, are living in separate
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4183
12 MCRC-50116-2024
establishments. In such a scenario, the trial of petitioners - father-in-law
Mukesh Singh Som, mother-in-law Nisha Som , maternal Uncle-in-law
Duradman Singh Chouhan and Maternal Aunt-in-law Madhu Chouhan, on
generalized and omnibus allegations, would an abuse of process of the Court
and would not serve the ends of justice.
17. Consequently, in view of law laid down in case of Chandralekha
Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (2013) 14 SCC 374 and(2013) 14 SCC
374 and Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar reported in
(2022) 6 SCC 5 9 9 , and Dara lakshmi Narayana Vs. State of Telangana
reported in (2025) 3 SCC 735 , the FIR bearing Crime No. 250/2024
registered at P.S. Nanakheda Distt. Ujjain and the consequential proceedings
thereto against petitioners - Mukesh Singh Som, Nisha Som, Durdaman
Singh Chouhan and Madhu Chouhan deserves to be quashed in exercise of
inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC.
18. The present petition u/S 482 of Cr.P.C. is allowed.
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
sh
