[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajendra Singh Lovanshi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 11 February, 2026
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5498
1 MCRC-31578-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 11th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 31578 of 2018
RAJENDRA SINGH LOVANSHI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Santosh Kumar Rajput - Advocate for the petitioners.
Ms. Kalpana Parmar - Public Prosecutor for the State.
Shri Rohit Jain - Advocate for the respondent No.2.
ORDER
The present petition, under Section 528 of BNSS (482 of Cr.P.C.) has
been filed by the petitioners seeking quashment of FIR bearing crime No.
269 of 2018 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Guna for offence
punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 34 of IPC read with Sections 3, 4 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act as well as all subsequent proceedings arising out
of the said FIR.
As per the prosecution story, the complainant submitted a written
report dated 13.03.2018 before the Superintendent of Police, Hoshangabad,
to the effect that her marriage was solemnized with accused Pradeep
Lovanshi on 29.04.2017 at Village Chauthlai, Tehsil Seoni Malwa, District
Hoshangabad, in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. After the
marriage, she resided initially at Itarsi and thereafter at New City Colony,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5498
2 MCRC-31578-2018
Guna, along with her husband and his family members. It was alleged that at
the time of marriage itself, her husband Pradeep Lovanshi, her sister-in-law
Mamta Lovanshi (petitioner No.2), and her brother-in-law Rajendra Singh
Lovanshi (petitioner No.1) expressed dissatisfaction with the dowry given.
They stated that nowadays at least Rs.2,00,000/- in cash along with
substantial dowry articles are given in marriage. They further alleged that
although Rs.2,00,000/- in cash and articles worth Rs.52,000/- had been given
by her father, the same was insufficient, and they demanded an additional
amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from her parental family. According to the
complainant, upon her inability to fulfill the additional demand, she was
subjected to physical and mental cruelty, particularly by her sister-in-law
Mamta Lovanshi. It was further alleged that her husband and sister-in-law
falsely accused her of performing tantric rituals and practicing black magic
with intention of controlling the family members, thereby humiliating and
harassing her. The complainant has further alleged that the accused persons
did not provide her with daily household necessities and did not permit her to
take up employment to support herself. She was allegedly restrained from
using a mobile phone and from communicating freely with her parents. Even
when she managed to speak to them, the phone was allegedly put on speaker
mode and the conversation was conducted in the presence of the entire
family. On 21.10.2017, her husband and sister-in-law Mamta (petitioner
No.2), took away all her jewellery and personal belongings, leaving her with
only one pair of clothes. Thereafter, her husband took her to her parental
home at Itarsi and told her father to take back his "sick daughter," stating that
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5498
3 MCRC-31578-2018
insufficient dowry had been given and a sick girl had been forced upon them.
It was further stated that she would reside in the ancestral village Hiran
Kheda with his parents while he would reside at Guna, and she would not be
taken back unless the additional sum of Rs.2,00,000/- was paid. It was
further alleged that on 20.02.2018, when the complainant contacted her
husband over the phone and requested that she be taken back to her
matrimonial home, he insisted that she give a written declaration that if she
returned and any incident occurred thereafter, she herself would be
responsible for the same. Upon receipt of the complaint, Police Station
Hoshangabad conducted a preliminary inquiry and registered Crime No.
0/18. As the alleged incidents had taken place within the jurisdiction of
District Guna, the matter was forwarded for registration of the substantive
offence. Consequently, Police Station Kotwali, Guna registered Crime No.
269/2018 and undertook further investigation. After completion of the
investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the competent trial Court
against the accused persons for offences punishable under Sections 498-A,
323, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners Rajendra Singh
Lovanshi and Mamta Lovanshi submits that the applicants are innocent and
have been falsely implicated in the present case due to matrimonial discord
between the complainant and her husband. It is contended that the FIR and
the charge-sheet do not disclose any specific, distinct or overt act attributable
to the present applicants and they have been roped in only because of their
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5498
4 MCRC-31578-2018
relationship with the husband of the complainant.
It is further submitted that as per the complainant's own version, she
allegedly came to her parental home on 21.10.2017 and the alleged incidents
are stated to have taken place prior to that date. However, the complaint was
lodged on 13.03.2018 before the Superintendent of Police, Hoshangabad,
after an unexplained delay of nearly five months. No satisfactory explanation
has been offered for such inordinate delay in lodging the report. This
unexplained delay creates serious doubt about the genuineness of the
prosecution story and renders the allegations highly doubtful and unreliable.
It is further submitted that the marriage of the complainant Aarti with
Pradeep was solemnized in a mass marriage ceremony at Hoshangabad
without any demand or exchange of dowry. Neither the husband's family nor
the present applicants ever demanded dowry or subjected the complainant to
cruelty on account of dowry. The allegations regarding demand of an
additional amount of Rs.2,00,000/- are false, vague and omnibus in nature.
There is no specific date, time or place mentioned when the present
applicants allegedly made such demand. The sweeping allegations that "all
accused persons" demanded dowry are insufficient to constitute the offences
alleged.
It is also submitted that the allegation of physical assault is wholly
baseless and unsupported by any medical evidence or independent witness.
The essential ingredients of Section 498-A IPC, namely willful conduct of
such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause
grave injury or danger to life, limb or health, are not made out against the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5498
5 MCRC-31578-2018
present applicants. Similarly, the ingredients of Sections 3 and 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act are not satisfied, as there is no specific and direct
allegation of demand by these applicants.
Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners are the Nanad and
Nandoi of the complainant. Applicant Mamta Lovanshi was married to
applicant Rajendra Singh Lovanshi several years prior to the marriage of the
complainant and has been residing with her husband at Guna. The
matrimonial home of the complainant is at Village Hiran Kheda, District
Hoshangabad, where her husband resides with his parents. The complainant
and her husband have never resided with the present applicants at Guna. The
applicants have always been living separately and independently, at a
considerable distance from the matrimonial home of the complainant. In
such circumstances, there was no occasion or opportunity for the applicants
to interfere in the day-to-day matrimonial life of the complainant or to
subject her to cruelty for dowry.
It is further contended that the husband of the complainant had asked
her to reside with him and his parents at Village Hiran Kheda, but she was
unwilling to stay in the village and insisted that her husband live separately
in a city away from his parents. When the husband declined to separate from
his parents and requested her to stay in the village, the complainant, with an
oblique motive to pressurize him, lodged the present false complaint
implicating not only the husband but also the present applicants.
Learned counsel emphasizes that it is a settled principle of law, as laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions, that in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5498
6 MCRC-31578-2018
matrimonial disputes there is a growing tendency to implicate all relatives of
the husband with general and omnibus allegations. Where the relatives are
residing separately and no specific role is attributed to them, the continuation
of criminal proceedings amounts to abuse of the process of law. In the
present case, there is no prima facie material to show that the applicants
shared a common household with the complainant or actively participated in
any alleged demand of dowry or cruelty.
It is lastly submitted that otherwise also, on a plain reading of the FIR
and the charge-sheet, no offence under Sections 498-A, 323, 34 IPC or
Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is made out against the present
applicants. The continuation of criminal proceedings against them would
cause undue harassment and would amount to misuse of the criminal justice
system. On these submissons, learned counsel prays that the FIR bearing
Crime No. 269/2018 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Guna, the
charge-sheet filed pursuant thereto, and all consequential proceedings in
Criminal Case No. 2320/2018 pending before the learned trial Court, insofar
as they relate to the present applicants be quashed.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor for the State as well as the
counsel for the complainant opposed the petition and submitted that the FIR
and the charge-sheet disclose specific allegations against the present
applicants, namely, Rajendra Singh Lovanshi and Mamta Lovanshi. It is
contended that the complainant has clearly alleged demand of additional
dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- and has specifically attributed acts of physical and
mental cruelty to the applicants, particularly to Mamta Lovanshi. The
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5498
7 MCRC-31578-2018
statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. during investigation support
the prosecution case and prima facie established the ingredients of offences
punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 34 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act. At this stage, meticulous appreciation of evidence is
not permissible and the Court is only required to see whether a prima facie
case is made out. It is further submitted that the contention regarding separate
residence of the applicants is a matter of defence which cannot be
adjudicated in proceedings seeking quashment. The delay in lodging the FIR
has been sufficiently explained by the complainant, who has stated that she
tolerated the harassment in order to save her matrimonial life. The
allegations relate to continuous cruelty and unlawful demand of dowry,
which constitute a continuing offence. Therefore, in view of the specific
allegations and material collected during investigation, it is prayed that the
petition be dismissed and the applicants be directed to face trial in
accordance with law.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the
material available on record, this Court finds that the FIR and the charge-
sheet disclose specific allegations regarding demand of dowry and acts of
mental and physical cruelty and the complainant has categorically alleged
that an additional sum of Rs.2,00,000/- was demanded and she was subjected
to harassment when the demand was not fulfilled. The statements recorded
during investigation under Section 161 Cr.P.C. lend prima facie support to
the prosecution version. At this stage, this Court, in exercise of its inherent
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is not
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5498
8 MCRC-31578-2018
required to meticulously appreciate the evidence or conduct a mini-trial. The
defence raised by the applicants, including the plea of separate residence and
false implication due to matrimonial discord, involves disputed questions of
fact which can only be adjudicated upon by the trial Court on the basis of
evidence led by the parties.
The scope of interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is well settled.
The inherent powers are to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection, and
only in cases where the allegations in the FIR or charge-sheet do not disclose
any offence or where the proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide
or amount to abuse of the process of Court. In State of Haryana and Others
v. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has laid down the categories of cases where quashment may be
justified. Similarly, in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of
Maharashtra, (2021) 19 SCC 401, the Apex Court has reiterated that at the
stage of quashing, the Court should not embark upon an appreciation of
evidence and should not stifle a legitimate prosecution at its threshold.
Further, in Kaptan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2021) 9 SCC 35, the
Supreme Court has held that where the allegations disclose a prima facie
cognizable offence, the High Court ought not to interfere under Section 482
Cr.P.C.
In the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
allegations, taken at their face value, prima facie constitute the offences
alleged. The grounds raised by the applicants pertain to their defence and
cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No case is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5498
9 MCRC-31578-2018
made out to demonstrate that the criminal proceedings are manifestly
frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of the process of law.
Accordingly, the petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. deserves to
be and is hereby dismissed. The interim order, if any, stands vacated. The
trial Court is directed to proceed with the matter expeditiously in accordance
with law, without being influenced by any observations made herein, which
are confined solely to the adjudication of the present petition.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
pwn*
