[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajeev Kumar Jain vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 February, 2026
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6926
1 MCRC-1693-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 23rd OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 1693 of 2026
RAJEEV KUMAR JAIN AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Siddharth Sharma - Advocate for the petitioners.
Ms Anjali Gyanani - Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1/State.
Shri Hemant Singh Rana - Advocate for the respondent [R-2].
ORDER
The present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita has been preferred by the petitioners seeking quashment of
FIR bearing Crime No. 725 of 2025 dated 15.11.2025 registered at Police
Station Dabra, District Gwalior for offences punishable under Sections 452,
354B, 147, 323, 294 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. As per the prosecution case, respondent No. 2, Smt. Archana Jain,
submitted a written complaint dated 25.07.2025 before the office of the Sub-
Divisional Police Officer, Dabra, alleging inaction and dereliction of duty on
the part of the City Police Station, Dabra, and seeking registration of an FIR
for offences relating to house-trespass, molestation, tearing of clothes,
assault, abuse and criminal intimidation. The said complaint was entered in
the complaint register of the SDPO office on 25.07.2025. During the course
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6926
2 MCRC-1693-2026
of inquiry, notices were issued to the complainant Smt. Archana Jain, her
husband Rajkumar Jain and her son Ansh Jain, and their statements were
recorded. In their statements, it was disclosed that the marriage of Ansh Jain
was solemnized on 14.04.2022 with Charu Jain, daughter of Rajeev Jain,
resident of Sipri Bazaar, Jhansi. It was stated that within about one month of
the marriage, Charu Jain left her matrimonial home following a dispute and
declared that she would not return. The complainant alleged that on
14.05.2023 at about 10:00 AM, accused Rajeev Jain, Rohit Jain, Shobhit
Jain, Jeetu Anora, Shikhar Anora and Anil Jain unlawfully entered her house.
Upon entering, it is alleged that Shobhit Jain and Rajeev Jain slapped her,
while Rohit Jain and Jeetu Anora physically assaulted her. It is specifically
alleged that Rohit Jain tore her blouse, thereby outraging her modesty.
Shikhar Anora is alleged to have assaulted her and caused a minor injury to
her leg. It is further alleged that Anil Jain and Rohit Jain assaulted Rajkumar
Jain and Ansh Jain with kicks and fists, causing multiple injuries. When the
complainant and her family members raised alarm and attempted to call the
police, the accused persons allegedly abused them in obscene language and
threatened them with dire consequences if the matter was reported. During
inquiry, medical examination reports of Rajkumar Jain and Ansh Jain dated
14.05.2023 and of Smt. Archana Jain dated 15.05.2023 issued by CHC
Dabra were obtained and placed on record. On the basis of the inquiry
conducted by the SDOP, it was concluded that the accused persons, forming
an unlawful assembly and acting in furtherance of their common intention,
committed house-trespass, assaulted the complainant and her family
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6926
3 MCRC-1693-2026
members, outraged the modesty of Smt. Archana Jain by tearing her clothes,
abused them and criminally intimidated them. Consequently, the impugned
FIR was registered.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the present case is a
glaring instance of misuse of the provisions of Section 354B of the Indian
Penal Code, which were enacted with the object of safeguarding the dignity
and modesty of women and deterring acts of sexual assault and harassment.
It is contended that the said provision is being invoked mechanically and for
oblique purposes, thereby causing serious prejudice to innocent persons.
4. It is further submitted that the allegations in the FIR, so far as the
present petitioners are concerned, are vague, omnibus and devoid of specific
attribution. The complainant has allegedly roped in all family members with
a view to exert pressure. Attention is drawn to the fact that an earlier FIR
bearing No. 402/2024 has been registered at Police Station Sipari Bazar,
Jhansi against the complainant's side for offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The
present FIR is stated to be a counterblast, lodged with mala fide intention to
harass the petitioners and their family members.
5. It is further argued that the allegations under Section 354B IPC are
inherently improbable and exaggerated, particularly in the backdrop of
admitted matrimonial discord and prior litigations between the parties.
Emphasis is placed on the alleged delay in lodging the FIR and on the fact
that during earlier compromise proceedings, affidavits were voluntarily
executed by the complainant and her husband, wherein no reference
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6926
4 MCRC-1693-2026
whatsoever was made to the alleged incident dated 14.05.2023 or
15.05.2023. The absence of any such allegation in those affidavits, it is
contended, demolishes the credibility of the prosecution story and indicates
that the present allegations are an afterthought and embellishment.
6. It is further submitted that on the date of the alleged incident, the
complainant voluntarily tore her own clothes and, in collusion with her
husband and son, proceeded to the police station with the intention of
lodging a false and fabricated complaint against the petitioners.
7. It is further submitted that during the course of mediation
proceedings, Rajkumar Jain and his son, Ansh Jain, categorically assured the
petitioner and her family that no demand for dowry would be made in the
future and that the petitioner's daughter would not be subjected to any form
of harassment or cruelty. Placing reliance upon the said assurances and in the
hope of restoring matrimonial harmony, the petitioner's daughter was sent
back to her matrimonial home. However, upon her return to her in-laws'
house, the petitioner's daughter was allegedly subjected to grave physical
assault and severe mental and physical cruelty. It is submitted that she was
manhandled, physically beaten, and even choked, causing her to sustain
visible injuries. The acts of the accused persons demonstrate a continued
pattern of harassment and cruelty, contrary to the assurances given during
mediation.
8. The petitioners contend that the subsequent registration of the
impugned FIR after a considerable lapse of time, despite an earlier
compromise and conscious decision not to pursue any complaint, clearly
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6926
5 MCRC-1693-2026
indicates that the FIR is fabricated and engineered to give criminal colour to
what is essentially a personal and matrimonial dispute. It is submitted that
continuation of the impugned FIR and consequential proceedings would
result in grave miscarriage of justice and cause irreparable injury to the
petitioners. On these grounds, the petitioners pray that the present petition be
allowed and the impugned FIR bearing Crime No. 725 of 2025 and all
consequential proceedings arising therefrom be quashed in the interest of
justice.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the petition
and submits that the impugned FIR discloses commission of cognizable
offences of serious nature, including offences under Sections 452, 354B,
147, 323, 294 and 506 IPC, which pertain to house-trespass, assault,
outraging the modesty of a woman, unlawful assembly and criminal
intimidation. It is contended that at the stage of quashment under Section 528
of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, this Hon'ble Court is only
required to examine whether a prima facie case is made out on the basis of
the allegations in the FIR and material collected during inquiry, and not to
conduct a meticulous appreciation of evidence or adjudicate upon disputed
questions of fact. The inquiry conducted by the SDOP culminated in
registration of the FIR only after recording statements of the complainant and
witnesses and collecting medical examination reports dated 14.05.2023 and
15.05.2023, which prima facie corroborate the allegations of assault. The
contention regarding delay, alleged counterblast, or matrimonial discord are
matters of defence to be examined during trial and cannot be adjudicated in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6926
6 MCRC-1693-2026
proceedings seeking quashment. It is further submitted that the allegations
regarding tearing of clothes and physical assault constitute a clear factual
foundation for invocation of Section 354B IPC and cannot be brushed aside
as inherently improbable at this stage. The inherent powers of this Hon'ble
Court are to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, and as the FIR
discloses specific overt acts and ingredients of the offences alleged, no case
for interference is made out. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be
dismissed.
10. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submits that the present
petition is a calculated attempt to thwart legitimate prosecution and to
intimidate the complainant, who is a victim of a violent and humiliating
assault. It is contended that the allegations in the complaint are specific and
detailed, clearly attributing distinct roles to each accused, including the act
of tearing the blouse of the complainant, thereby outraging her modesty. The
incident occurred within the backdrop of ongoing matrimonial discord,
wherein the complainant's family had been consistently subjected to
harassment and pressure. The delay in registration of FIR stands sufficiently
explained, as the complainant was constrained to approach higher police
authorities due to initial inaction at the local police station. The medical
reports substantiate the occurrence of physical assault, lending credibility to
the prosecution version. The defence sought to be raised by the petitioners,
including allegations of counterblast or compromise affidavits, involves
disputed facts requiring evidence and cross-examination and cannot form the
basis for quashing at the threshold. It is further submitted that offences under
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6926
7 MCRC-1693-2026
Section 354B IPC are grave in nature, affecting the dignity of a woman, and
the petitioners cannot seek shelter under technical pleas to evade trial. The
petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.
11. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
12. The scope of interference by this Court in exercise of inherent
jurisdiction for quashment of an FIR is well settled. The inherent power,
though wide, is to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in the
rarest of rare cases to prevent abuse of the process of law or otherwise to
secure the ends of justice. The principles governing such exercise have been
authoritatively laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v.
Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, wherein illustrative categories were
carved out in which quashment of proceedings would be justified, including
cases where the allegations in the FIR, even if taken at their face value and
accepted in entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or where the
criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and has been
instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance.
13. Similarly, in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 , the
Supreme Court held that criminal proceedings may be quashed where the
allegations do not constitute an offence, or where there exists a legal bar to
institution or continuation of proceedings, or where the allegations are so
absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person could ever reach a
conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
14. Examining the facts of the present case in light of the aforesaid
principles, it is not in dispute that the marriage of Ansh Jain with Charu Jain
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6926
8 MCRC-1693-2026
was solemnized on 14.04.2022 and that matrimonial discord arose shortly
thereafter. It is also not in dispute that litigations between the parties were
already pending and an FIR bearing No. 402/2024 had been registered at
Police Station Sipari Bazar, Jhansi, against the complainant's side for
offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 3 and 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
15. The incident in question is alleged to have occurred on 14.05.2023.
However, the impugned FIR came to be registered on 15.11.2025, i.e., after a
lapse of more than two years from the date of the alleged incident. Though
mere delay in lodging the FIR is not by itself fatal, in the present case the
delay assumes significance in view of the admitted fact that during the
interregnum, compromise in the mediation proceedings was undertaken
between the parties. It is an admitted position that in the said compromise, no
reference whatsoever was made to the alleged incident dated 14.05.2023
involving house-trespass, assault or tearing of clothes.
16. The absence of even a whisper regarding such a serious allegation,
particularly one attracting Section 354B IPC, in contemporaneous
compromise proceedings between the same parties, casts a serious doubt on
the veracity and spontaneity of the prosecution version. The allegation of
tearing of blouse and outraging modesty is of a grave and humiliating nature;
it is difficult to accept that such an incident, if true, would not find mention
in any earlier proceedings or affidavits executed voluntarily before
competent authorities.
17. The allegations in the FIR further reveal that all the accused
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6926
9 MCRC-1693-2026
persons, who are related to the matrimonial dispute, have been roped in with
omnibus assertions of assault and abuse. Though certain roles have been
attributed, the entire narration appears to stem from and be intertwined with
the ongoing matrimonial discord between the families. The background of
prior litigation and the registration of an earlier criminal case against the
complainant's side lend credence to the contention of the petitioners that the
present FIR is a counterblast arising out of strained matrimonial relations.
18. At this stage, this Court is not required to weigh the evidence or
adjudicate upon the truthfulness of rival claims. However, where the
attending circumstances, including unexplained and inordinate delay, prior
compromise omitting any reference to the alleged incident, and admitted
existence of cross-litigation, collectively indicate that the criminal law
machinery has been set in motion with oblique motive, the Court would be
justified in exercising its inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process.
19. In the peculiar facts of the present case, particularly in view of the
long silence and subsequent surfacing of allegations after deterioration of
matrimonial relations, the invocation of Section 354B IPC appears to be an
exaggerated embellishment intended to give a serious criminal colour to
what is essentially a fallout of matrimonial discord.
20. The Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (supra) has
specifically recognized that where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended with mala fide or maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance, the same deserves to be quashed. Applying the said
test, this Court is of the considered opinion that continuation of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6926
10 MCRC-1693-2026
impugned FIR and consequential proceedings would amount to permitting
the criminal process to be used as a weapon of harassment in a private
matrimonial dispute.
21. In view of the foregoing analysis, this Court is satisfied that
allowing the criminal proceedings to continue would result in abuse of the
process of law and cause undue harassment to the petitioners.
22. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. FIR bearing Crime No. 725 of
2025 dated 15.11.2025 registered at Police Station Dabra, District Gwalior,
for offences under Sections 452, 354B, 147, 323, 294 and 506 of the Indian
Penal Code, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom insofar as it
relate to present petitioners, are hereby quashed.
No order as to costs.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
ojha
