[Cites 15, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ajay Bhartiya vs The State Of M.P on 25 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16565
1 MCRC-35142-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIMANSHU JOSHI
ON THE 25th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 35142 of 2021
AJAY BHARTIYA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF M.P AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ashok Kumar Shah - Advocate for the petitioners.
Smt. Pushpanjaly Dwivedi - Panel Lawyer for the State.
Shri Vivek Agrawal - Advocate respondent No.2.
ORDER
The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR vide Crime No.733/2020
for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 294, 323, 34 of the IPC
and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act registered at Police Station
Budhar District Shahdol.
2. Facts of the case in short are that petitioners are permanent resident of
District Dranbad |(Jharkhand) and reputed persons of the society. The
petitioner No.1 is husband, whereas the petitioners No.2 & 3 are father-in-
law and mother-in-law of the complainant. The allegations against the
petitioners are that petitioner along with other co-accused persons were
harassing the respondent no.2 for demand of dowery. They were also making
pressure on the respondent to give the money deposited in the account of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16565
2 MCRC-35142-2021
daughter of the respondent no. 2 by her ex. Husband and on denial by her.
They abused and assaulted her. The FIR has been lodged vide Crime
No.733/2020 registered against petitioners and other accused persons for
offences punishable under Section 498-A, 294, 323, 34 of the IPC and
Section 3, 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. During pendency of present petition, the petitioner No.2 died on
13.02.2023 and his name was deleted from the array of petitioner vide order
dated 22.10.2024.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner No.1 is a
government employee, whereas the petitioner No.3 is an old lady aged about
69 years who is suffering from several old diseases. The complainant got
married with the petitioner No.1 in the year 2019. Earlier she got married
with one Vishal Gupta from whom she got divorced in the year of 2017 on
the basis of mutual consent and huge amount had been recovered by the
complainant from her earlier husband and the same tactics is applied by the
complainant in the present case. The petitioners did not subject the
complainant to cruelty for demand of dowery but with ulterior motive the
allegations have been made by the complainant to recover a huge amount
from the petitioners as the petitioners is having good reputation and strength
in the society as she has earlier done with her previous husband, therefore,
the FIR be quashed and present petition be allowed.
5. Learned Panel Lawyer for the State as well as counsel for the
respondent No.2 opposed the contentions of learned counsel for the
petitioner and prays for dismissal of petition. It is submitted by learned
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16565
3 MCRC-35142-2021
counsel for the respondent No.2 that the complainant lodged a First
Information Report on 10.10.2020 at Police Station Budhar, District Shahdol
clearly narrating that after her marriage with petitioner No.1 Ajay Bhartiya
on 17.04.2019 at Gayatri Mandir, Shahdol. She was subjected to continuous
harassment, physical and mental cruelty and dowry demands by her husband
and in-laws. It was specifically alleged that the petitioners were pressurizing
her to withdraw the amount deposited by her previous husband in the name
of her minor daughter and further demanded Rs.10,00,000/- and other
articles from her parental home. The allegation of the petitioner that the FIR
has been lodged with an intention to extort money is baseless and concocted.
Mere allegations of false implication cannot be a ground for quashing the
FIR, particularly when the complaint discloses specific instances of cruelty
and dowry demand. The marriage between petitioner No.1 and respondent
No.2 was solemnized as per Hindu rites and ceremonies at Gayatri:
Shaktipeeth, Shahdol, and a marriage certificate was issued. Thereafter, both
parties jointly applied for registration of marriage and certificate was also
issued by the Special Marriage Officer, Dhanbad. Non-production of certain
documents in Section 125 proceedings cannot invalidate a lawful marriage
nor can it be a ground to quash criminal prosecution. Learned counsel for the
further submits that order dated 15.12.2022 passed by the Family Court, the
Court itself observed that respondent No.2 is the legally wedded wife of
petitioner No.1 and he has deliberately suppressed this material fact from the
present petition. Hence, it is prayed that the present petition be dismissed
with costs.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16565
4 MCRC-35142-2021
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.
7. Perusal of the record of the case revels that the marriage between the
petitioenr No.1 and respondent No.2 was solemnized on 17.04.2019. The
FIR revels that the behaviour of the petitioner - husband and their family
members was cruel and aggressive. The respondent No.2 was subjected to
physically and mentally by suing filthy language. Therefore, her life
measurable and left the matrimonial home. It is alleged in the FIR that the
petitioners used to demand ten lakhs cash. It is further submitted that the FIR
not only implicates the petitioner No.1/husband but also names other family
members.
8. In the case of State of Haryana Vs. BhajanLal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC
335 , the Supreme Court has laid down following principles for the exercise
of the jurisdiction by the High Court in exercise of its powers under Section
482 CrPC to quash an FIR or charge sheet as well as criminal proceedings:-
"102. 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 CrPC 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
channelised 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
facie constitute any offence or make out a case against
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16565
5 MCRC-35142-2021
the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report
and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do
not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an
investigation by police officers under Section 156(1)
CrPC except under an order of a Magistrate within the
purview of Section 155(2) CrPC.
(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 FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer
without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under
Section 155(2) Cr.P.C.
(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 Act concerned
(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.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended
with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is
maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to
spite him due to private and personal grudge."
9. Regarding initiation of the criminal proceedings against the husband and
his family members after the divorce petition/restitution of conjugal rights is
filed by the husband reference may also be had to the decision of the
Supreme Court in the case of Kamlesh Kalra Vs. Shilpika Kalr And Ors.
reported in 2020 (4) JKJ 176, the Supreme Court has held as under:-
"15. As regards, the finding recorded by the High Court
in respect of complaint/FIR filed under Section 498A
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16565
6 MCRC-35142-2021
IPC, we are of the firm opinion that the same does not
call for interference. In the facts of this case, it is clear
that the FIR filed in this regard in 2015 was time barred,
having been filed much more than three years after the
separation of xxxx (husband) and xxxx (wife) and the
filing of the divorce petition by the husband, both in
2009. In the facts of the case, the reasons given by the
High Court for quashing the proceedings under section
498A IPC are justified and do not call for interference
by this Court."
10. Similarly, in the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Ors. Vs. State
of Bihar and Ors. reported in 2022 Legal Eagle (SC) 142 Criminal Appeal
No.195/2022 (arising out of a SLP (Crl) No.6545/2020 dated 08.02.2022 the
Supreme Court has dealt with the growing tendency in matrimonial disputes
to lodge false FIR against the husband and his family members u/s.498-A of
IPC to settle the personal scores against them, and it is held as under:-
"12. Before we delve into greater detail on the nature
and content of allegations made, it becomes pertinent to
mention that incorporation of Section 498-A of the IPC
was aimed at preventing cruelty committed upon a
woman by her husband and her in-laws, by facilitating
rapid State intervention. However, it is equally true, that
in recent times, matrimonial litigation in the country has
also increased significantly and there is a greater is
affection and friction surrounding the institution of
marriage, now, more than ever. This has resulted in an
increased tendency to employ provisions such as
Section 498-A IPC as instruments to settle personal
scores against the husband and his relatives."
11. The landmark judgment of this Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of
Bihar Anr. (2014) 8 SCC 273 it was also observed:-
"4. There is a phenomenal increase in
matrimonial disputes in recent years. The
institution of marriage is greatly revered in
this country. Section 498-AIPC was
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16565
7 MCRC-35142-2021
introduced with avowed object to combat the
menace of harassment to a woman at the
hands of her husband and his relatives. The
fact that Section 498-AIPC is a cognizable
and non-bailable offence has lent it a dubious
place of pride amongst the provisions that are
used as weapons rather than shield by
disgruntled wives. The simplest way to harass
is to get the husband and his relatives
arrested under this provision. In quite a
number of cases, bedridden grandfathers and
grandmothers of the husbands, their sisters
living abroad for decades are arrested."
12. Further in Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand & Anr. (2010) 7 SCC 667
it has also been observed:-
"32. It is a matter of common experience that most of
these complaints under Section 498-AIPC are filed in
the heat of the moment over trivial issues without
proper deliberations. We come across a large number of
such complaints which are not even bona fide and are
filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid
increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry
harassment is also a matter of serious concern.
33. The learned members of the Bar have enormous
social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the
social fibre of family life is not ruined or demolished.
They must ensure that exaggerated versions of small
incidents should not be reflected in the criminal
complaints. Majority of the complaints are filed either
on their advice or with their concurrence. The earned
members of the Bar who belong to a noble profession
must maintain its noble traditions and should treat every
complaint under Section 498-A as a basic human
problem and must make serious endeavour to help the
parties in arriving at an amicable resolution of that
human problem. They must discharge their duties to the
best of their abilities to ensure that social fibre, peace
and tranquility of the society remains intact. The
members of the Bar should also ensure that one
complaint should not lead to multiple cases.
34. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint
the implications and consequences are not properly
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16565
8 MCRC-35142-2021
visualized by the complainant that such complaint can
lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to
the complainant, accused and his close relations.
35. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth
and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find
out the truth is a Herculean task in majority of these
complaints. The tendency of implicating the husband
and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon.
At times, even after the conclusion of the criminal trial,
it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have
to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with
these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into
consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases.
The allegations of harassment of husband's close
relations 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 complaint are
required to be scrutinised with great care and
circumspection.
36. Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal
trials lead to rancour, acrimony and bitterness in the
relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter of
common knowledge that in cases filed by the
complainant if the husband or the husband's relations
had to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin
the chances of an amicable settlement altogether. The
process of suffering is extremely long and painful."
13. The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this Court has
at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of Section 498-A
IPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in
matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long-term ramifications of a trial
on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said
judgments that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made
in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse
of the process of law.
14. Therefore, this Court by way of its judgments has warned the Courts
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16565
9 MCRC-35142-2021
from proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no
prima-facie case is made out against them. It is undisputed fact that the
marriage between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 was solemnized on
17.04.2019 as per Hindu Rites and Customs. The complainant has
categorically mentioned a specific incident dated 18.08.2020 when she was
assaulted and abused upon refusal to fulfill the illegal demands. The
allegations are specific, detailed and disclose commission of cognizable
offences under Sections 498-A, 294, 323, 34 IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act. The medical examination of the complainant also
corroborates the allegations by recording injuries on her body.
15. When the facts of the case in hand are tested on anvil of the aforesaid
facts, it is apparent that no specific allegation has been made against the
petitioner No.3. It appears that the impugned FIR on which criminal
proceedings have been maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for
wrecking vengeance on the family members and with a view to spite them
due to private and personal grudge best known to the wife. It clearly appears
that filing of criminal complaint is a pressure tactic, having been employed
by the complainant against the family members of the petitioner
No.1/husband. It appears that the impugned FIR is nothing, but is a
premeditation with an ulterior motive of respondent No.2 to pressurize her
husband and his family members and to drag them in a criminal proceedings
for their prosecution. Under these circumstances, prima facie, no case is
made out against commission of alleged offence against petitioner No.3.
16. In the result, the petition filed on behalf of petitioner No. 3 Smt.
Pavitra under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is allowed and the impugned FIR vide
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16565
10 MCRC-35142-2021
Crime No.733/2020 registered at Police Station Budhar District - Shahdol for
offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 294, 323, 34 of IPC and Section
3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act is hereby quashed. The trial against the
petitioner No.1/ husband will continue.
17. With the aforesaid directions, the present petition is allowed in part
with no order to costs.
(HIMANSHU JOSHI)
JUDGE
pn
