[Cites 15, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mohar Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 January, 2026
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3738
1 MCRC-1862-2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 29th OF JANUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 1862 of 2020
MOHAR SINGH AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Siddarth Sharma appeared for petitioner.
Shri Harish Sharma Dy Ga appearing on behalf of Advocate General.
Shri Brijendra Singh Gour, learned counsel for the respondent [R-2].
ORDER
This petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashment of the FIR registered
as Crime No. 0209/2019 at Police Station Ater, District Bhind (M.P.) for the
offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 34 of the IPC and Sections
3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, along with all consequential
proceedings arising therefrom.
2. As per the prosecution story, the marriage between Petitioner No. 1
and Respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 19-04-2019 according to Hindu
rites and customs. At the relevant time, Petitioner No. 1 was posted at Ujjain,
and Respondent No. 2 voluntarily accompanied him. Shortly after the
marriage, it became evident that Respondent No. 2's behavior was not
proper. She was continuously engaged in phone conversations with unknown
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3738
2 MCRC-1862-2020
persons. Upon inquiry, it was revealed that Respondent No. 2 had been in a
relationship prior to marriage and was unwilling to accept Petitioner No. 1 as
her husband. She repeatedly refused to engage in marital relations, causing
mental cruelty to Petitioner No. 1. Despite repeated attempts by Petitioner
No. 1 to make her understand her marital obligations, there was no change in
her behavior. After some time petitioner No. 1 started residing at 14-Dipti
Nagar and during that period, he came to know that some person was
visiting Respondent No. 2 in his absence. When confronted, Respondent No.
2 admitted that she was in a relationship with one Awadhesh Gurjar, and was
unable to discharge her duties as a wife. On 09-09-2019, Petitioner No. 1
found a handwritten note left by Respondent No. 2 indicating her intention to
leave the house. Thereafter, petitioner No. 1 learned from Awadhesh Gurjar
that Respondent No. 2 was at Ujjain Railway Station, and fearing for her life
due to prior suicidal threats, he personally went to bring her back.
3. It is submitted that the parents of Respondent No. 2 were contacted
and were also unwilling to condone her behavior. They took her away from
Ujjain, and Petitioner No. 1 later came to know that she returned to Bhind
and continued cohabiting with Awadhesh Gurjar. The illicit relationship
between Respondent No. 2 and Awadhesh Gurjar continued, causing
Petitioner No. 1 to file an application under Section 13(1) of the Hindu
Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage. A Section 14 application for
permission to file the petition within one year was allowed. It is submitted
that Respondent No. 2 has, despite her admitted misconduct, lodged a false
complaint with the police. Petitioner No. 1 had already approached the police
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3738
3 MCRC-1862-2020
authorities regarding apprehensions about Respondent No. 2's conduct. It is
submitted that Respondent No. 2, by lodging a false complaint, is attempting
to misuse the process of law. The complaint is malicious and has been filed
to conceal her own misconduct.
4. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the
allegations are false, motivated, and have been filed only to harass the
petitioners and to pressurize them after matrimonial proceedings were
initiated by Petitioner No. 1. The FIR does not disclose any prima facie
offence, and continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to
misuse of the criminal justice system. It is submitted that Petitioner No. 1
repeatedly requested Respondent No. 2 to disclose her problems and resolve
matrimonial issues. She was not willing to accept Petitioner No. 1 as her
husband rather she wanted to live with one Awadhesh Gurjar, with whom
she was already in a physical relationship. She also stated that the marriage
was forcible, despite living with the petitioner after marriage. When these
facts were communicated to the parents of Respondent No. 2, even they
objected to her conduct. However, due to social pressure, they were
unwilling to disclose the truth to society. Therefore, in order to give a false
explanation for why Respondent No. 2 left her matrimonial home, a false and
fabricated story was created, resulting in the present FIR. It has been argued
that the FIR was lodged only after Petitioner No. 1 filed an application under
Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, wherein the complete factual
background was already narrated. The criminal complaint is a counterblast to
the divorce petition and has been filed only to create a false defence and to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3738
4 MCRC-1862-2020
intimidate the petitioners. At the relevant time, Respondent No. 2 was
residing with Petitioner No. 1, whereas Petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 were residing
separately in their village. Despite this, the entire family has been falsely
implicated without any specific allegations or overt acts, which clearly shows
mala fide intention. In the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court, as
enunciated below, the instant FIR and consequential proceedings deserves to
be quashed, to save the petitioners from ongoing trauma at the hands of the
complainant. Thus, it was submitted that the proceedings instituted against
the present petitioners be quashed in view of the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the matters of Ramesh Kumar Vs State of Tamil
Nadu reported in 2005 SCC (Crl.) 735; Preeti Gupta & Another vs. State of
Jharkhand & Another reported in (2010) 3 SCC (Cri.) 473, Arnesh Kumar
Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273 and G.V.Rao Vs. L.H.V.
Prasad (2000) 3 SCC 693. To bolster his submissions, he has also placed
reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in Cr.A. No. 2379
of 2024 [Achin Gupta Vs. The State of Haryana & Anr., decided on
03.05.2024].
5. Per contra, Counsel for the respondent/State as well as counsel for
the respondent no.2 had opposed the submissions so made by counsel for
the petitioners and it was submitted that there are specific allegations against
the present petitioners, therefore, they are not entitled for any relief and
inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. at this stage shall not be
exercised.
6. It was further submitted that the First Information Report speaks
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3738
5 MCRC-1862-2020
volumes about the demand of dowry at the behest of the present petitioners
and as per the First Information Report, prima facie a case is made out
against petitioners under the aforesaid sections and, therefore, no interference
is warranted.
7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of State of Haryana Vs.
Chaudhari Bhajanlal reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 has laid down the
following guidelines for quashment of F.I.R. which are reproduced below:-
"(a) 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 the accused;
(b) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other
materials, if any, accompanying the F.LR. 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;
(c) where the uncontroverted allegations made ii n 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;
(d) 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) of the Code;
(e) 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;
(f) 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;
(g) where a criminal proceedings manifestly attended with mala
fide and/or where the proceedings maliciously instituted with an
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3738
6 MCRC-1862-2020
ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on. the accused and with a
view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. [305D-H;
306A-E] 8.2. In the instant case, the, allegations made in the
complaint, do clearly constitute a cognizable offence justify on
and this case does not call for the exercise of extraordinary or
inherent powers of the High Court to quash the F.LR. itself.
[307B] State of West Bengal v. S.N. Basak, [1963] 2 SCR 52;
distinguished.'
9. The Apex Court in the case of Preeti Gupta Vs. State of Jharkhand
(AIR 2010 SC 3363), the Apex Court has held as under:-
"28. It is a matter of common knowledge that unfortunately
matrimonial litigation is rapidly increasing in our country. All the
courts in our country including this court are flooded with
matrimonial cases. This clearly demonstrates discontent and
unrestin the family life of a large number of people of the society.
29. The courts are receiving a large number of cases emanating
from section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code which reads as
under:-
"498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting
her to cruelty.--Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the
husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be
punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three
years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.--For the
purposes of this section, 'cruelty' means:-
(a) any wilful conduct which is 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 (whether mental or physical) of the
woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a
view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any
unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on
account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such
demand."
30. 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 are
also a matter of serious concern.
31. The learned members of the Bar have enormous social
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3738
7 MCRC-1862-2020
responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fiber 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 learned
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 fiber, 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.
32. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the
implications and consequences are not properly visualized by the
complainant _that such complaint can lead to insurmountable
harassment, agony and pain to to the the complainant, accused and
his close relations.
33. 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 husband and all his immediate relations is also not
uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of 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 scrutinized with
great care and circumspection. 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 amicable settlement
altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and
painful."
10. The legal position, which is culled out from the above enunciations
is that if the allegations made in the first information report, are taken at their
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3738
8 MCRC-1862-2020
face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any
offence or make out a case against the accused, then the Court would be
justified in quashing the proceedings preventing the abuse of process of law.
11. From perusal of the FIR it reveals that the marriage between
Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 19-04-2019 and
that Respondent No. 2 voluntarily accompanied Petitioner No. 1 to Ujjain.
Soon after the marriage, Respondent No. 2 refused to discharge her
matrimonial obligations, declined marital relations, and admittedly continued
her relationship with another person, namely Awadhesh Gurjar. Her conduct
caused mental cruelty to Petitioner No. 1, despite repeated efforts on his part
to resolve the issues amicably. The material on record further shows that
Respondent No. 2 left the matrimonial home on her own accord, leaving
behind a handwritten note, and was later found at the railway station. Even
her parents, when contacted, did not support her conduct and took her away.
Subsequently, Respondent No. 2 returned to Bhind and continued cohabiting
with Awadhesh Gurjar, which ultimately compelled Petitioner No. 1 to
initiate divorce proceedings under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act,
after obtaining due permission under Section 14. Significantly, the FIR in
question was lodged only after the initiation of matrimonial proceedings. The
timing of the FIR clearly indicates that it is a counterblast to the divorce
petition and has been filed with the sole intention of pressurizing the
petitioners and creating a false defence. The criminal law has thus been
invoked not for redressal of any genuine grievance, but to settle personal
scores.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3738
9 MCRC-1862-2020
12. It is also evident that Petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 were residing
separately in their village and had no role in the matrimonial life of
Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2. Their implication in the FIR is
vague, general, and without any specific allegations or overt acts. Such
omnibus allegations against the entire family clearly demonstrate mala fide
intention and abuse of the criminal process.
13. Despite detailed and specific arguments advanced on behalf of the
petitioners, the learned counsel for the respondents has failed to rebut the
factual assertions, explain the delay and timing of the FIR, or point out any
material disclosing a prima facie offence. No satisfactory explanation has
been offered to justify the false implication of family members or the
initiation of criminal proceedings after the filing of the divorce petition. In
light of the settled law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases
governing quashing of FIRs in matrimonial disputes, this Court is duty-
bound to prevent misuse of criminal law and protect innocent persons from
unnecessary harassment, therefore, allowing the proceedings to continue
would only result in prolonged mental agony, social stigma, and abuse of the
judicial process. Thus, considering the totality of circumstances, the
admitted facts on record, the timing and nature of the FIR, the absence of
prima facie allegations, and the failure of the respondents to counter the
petitioners' arguments, this Court finds that the present FIR and all
consequential proceedings deserve to be quashed, to secure the ends of
justice and to save the petitioners from ongoing trauma and abuse of process
of law.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3738
10 MCRC-1862-2020
14. Thus, this Court finds that the FIR does not disclose commission
of an offence against the present petitioners and, therefore, to prevent the
abuse of process of law has no hesitation to quash the FIR registered at
Crime No.209/2019 at Police Station Ater District Bhind for offence
punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 34 of IPC and 3 and 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act and all the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom
so far as they relate to present petitioners.
15. Accordingly, the present petitioners are acquitted from the charges
levelled against them. Hence, the petition is allowed and disposed of.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
(aspr)
