[Cites 15, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anita Tiwari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16792
1 MCRC-39346-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B. P. SHARMA
ON THE 24th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 39346 of 2024
ANITA TIWARI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri B.J. Chourasia - Advocate for petitioners.
Smt. Nitu Pashine - Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1/State.
Shri Ravi Shankar Patel - Advocate for the respondent No.2.
ORDER
By way of the present petition filed under Section 482 of CrPC, 1973
(Section 528 of BNSS, 2023), the petitioners seek quashing of FIR dated
08.08.2024 registered as Crime No.52/2024 at Police Station-Mahila Thana,
Chhatarpur (MP) for the offences under Sections 85, 296, 115(2), 351(2),
3(5) of BNS, 2023 (According to old offence under Sections 294, 323, 506,
498-A r/w 34 of IPC) and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and all
consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
2. As per the contents of the FIR, the marriage between co-accused Alok
Awasthy and respondent No.2 was solemnized on 31.01.2023 in accordance
with Hindu rites and rituals. The present petitioners are relatives of the
husband of respondent No.2/complainant; petitioner No.1 is the aunt-in-law
(Bua Saas ) and petitioner No.2 is her son. It is alleged that after about three
months of the marriage, the husband of respondent No.2 along with her
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16792
2 MCRC-39346-2024
mother-in-law and other family members, began demanding dowry and
subjecting her to physical and mental harassment. The FIR further states that
during her pregnancy, when respondent No.2 complained of ill health, the
husband, mother-in-law and the present petitioners took her to her maternal
home and allegedly abused her, stating that unless she brought Rs.5,00,000/-,
they would not take her for medical treatment. Owing to the aforesaid
allegations the FIR was lodged by respondent No.2 for aforementioned
offences.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that respondent No.2 has
lodged the FIR with an oblique motive, solely to harass and torture the
petitioners. It is submitted that the petitioner No.1 is aunt-in-law (Bua Saas )
of respondent No.2 and petitioner No.2 is her son. They does not reside in
the same house with respondent No.2. It is submitted that when the
respondent No.2 did not return from her maternal house, co-accused i.e.
husband of the respondent No.2 has filed an application on 07.08.2024 under
Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act. It is further contended that as a
counterblast the FIR was lodged by the respondent No.2 on 08.08.2024. The
said FIR does not disclose any specific dates, times or material particulars
relating to the alleged incidents of cruelty, harassment or dowry demand.
The allegations made therein are stated to be false, frivolous, vague and
devoid of substance. It is also contended that respondent No.2 has failed to
produce any supporting documentary evidence or independent witnesses to
substantiate the allegations made in the FIR. Thus, prayer for quashing of
FIR is made.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16792
3 MCRC-39346-2024
4. Learned counsel for the respondent/State as well as respondent No.2
submit that the FIR has been lodged after due verification of the facts and
discloses commission of cognizable offences against the petitioners. The
plea of the petitioners that the FIR is a counterblast is a matter of defence,
which cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482 of CrPC. It is
further submitted that the FIR prima facie discloses the ingredients of the
alleged offences and, therefore, no case for quashing is made out.
5. This Court has bestowed its anxious consideration to the rival
submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and has carefully
examined the FIR, the material placed on record, and the law governing the
exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Code of Criminal
Procedure.
6. The point of consideration of this Court is that whether the allegations
even if taken at face value, constitute the alleged offence and constitution of
proceeding amount to abuse of process of law ?
7. The legal position governing the exercise of inherent powers for
quashing FIRs in matrimonial disputes is now well settled. The Supreme
Court, in Abhishek v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2023 SCC OnLine SC
1083), has reiterated that while criminal law must operate as a shield to
protect genuine victims of matrimonial cruelty, it cannot be allowed to
degenerate into a tool of oppression by indiscriminately arraying all relatives
of the husband in the absence of specific allegations. The Court sounded a
note of caution that vague, general, and omnibus allegations particularly
against relatives residing separately or having no direct nexus with the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16792
4 MCRC-39346-2024
matrimonial household justify judicial intervention to prevent abuse of the
criminal process.
8. A similar principle was reiterated in Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana
(2024 SCC OnLine SC 759), wherein the Supreme Court emphasised the
duty of constitutional courts to maintain a delicate equilibrium: on one hand,
ensuring that legitimate prosecutions are not stifled at the threshold, and on
the other, safeguarding individuals from frivolous, vindictive, or unjustified
criminal proceedings. It was categorically held that where the FIR does not
disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged offences against certain
accused and lacks specificity as to their role, permitting the prosecution to
continue would amount to unwarranted persecution.
9. When the aforesaid principles are applied to the facts of the present
case, it becomes evident that the FIR, insofar as the present petitioners are
concerned no specific role, act, or conduct has been attributed to
petitioners. There is no specific allegation that they raised any demand for
dowry, subjected the complainant to cruelty, instigated the co-accused
i.e.husband of respondent No.2 or participated in any act of physical or
mental harassment. Mere allegations, when not accompanied by any
demand, threat, coercion or consequential harassment, does not fulfill the
essential ingredients of an offence under Section 498-A IPC. Significantly,
the present petitioners, who are aunt-in-law (Bua Saas ) and her son, have
been residing separately for a long time and are not alleged to have shared
the matrimonial household with respondent No.2 at any relevant point of
time.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16792
5 MCRC-39346-2024
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Abhishek (supra) a n d Achin Gupta
(supra) has consistently drawn a clear distinction between the husband, who
occupies a central role in the matrimonial relationship and other relatives,
whose criminal liability must be founded on specific and prima facie
allegations. Mechanical implication of such relatives on the basis of vague
and omnibus assertions with cleverly drafting has been strongly deprecated.
11. In view of the foregoing analysis, this Court is of the considered
opinion that continuation of criminal proceedings against petitioners would
amount to abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, the petition is allowed.
FIR dated 08.08.2024 registered as Crime No.52/2024, at Police Station-
Mahila Thana, Chhatarpur (MP) for the offences under Sections 85, 296,
115(2), 351(2), 3(5) of BNS, 2023 and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition
Act and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed
insofar as it relates to petitioners.
12. With the aforesaid, this petition under Section 482 of CrPC, 1973
(Section 528 of BNSS, 2023) stands allowed and disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
(B. P. SHARMA)
JUDGE
L/@shish
