[Cites 16, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Prahlad Tiwari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 March, 2026
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8349
1 MCRC-14162-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 10th OF MARCH, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 14162 of 2024
PRAHLAD TIWARI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Pradeep Katare - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Samar Ghuraiya - Public Prosecutor for the State.
Smr. Harshita Mishra - Advocate for the respondent No.2.
ORDER
By invoking inherent powers of this Court, the present petition has
been preferred by petitioners No.1 to 3, namely, Prahlad Tiwari, Ankit
Tiwari and Smt. Anita Tiwari respectively under Section 528 of BNSS (482
of the CrPC) seeking quashment of FIR, dated 24.09.2023 bearing Crime
No.378 of 2023 registered at Police Station University, District Gwalior for
the offence punishable under Sections 376, 377, 506, 34 of IPC and all
consequential criminal proceedings initiated therefrom.
As per prosecution story, the complainant/prosecutrix, aged about 28
years, resident of Bank Colony, Alkapuri, City Center, near New High Court,
Gwalior, appeared before the police station on 24.09.2023 and submitted a
written complaint. In the complaint, she stated that her marriage with
accused Ankit Tiwari (Petitioner No.2) was solemnized on 31.05.2022 at 3rd
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8349
2 MCRC-14162-2024
A-11, Sector-03, Vaishali, Ghaziabad in accordance with Hindu rites and
customs. After the marriage, she resided for some time at her matrimonial
home at Vaishali, Ghaziabad. Thereafter she accompanied her husband to
Hyderabad where he was employed, and later in January, 2023 her husband
was transferred to Delhi, after which she again started residing with him. On
25.03.2023, the complainant along with her husband Ankit Tiwari (Petitioner
No.2), her mother-in-law Anita Tiwari (Petitioner No.3) and her father-in-
law Prahlad Tiwari (Petitioner No.1) had come to Gwalior to attend a family
function organized at her parental house on the occasion of the opening of
her brother's brand/store. It was alleged that after attending the function, the
complainant returned home along with the aforesaid persons and served them
water, and thereafter went to a room to change her clothes while her husband
allegedly went outside to attend a phone call. The complainant further
alleged that while she was changing her clothes in the room, her father-in-
law Prahlad Tiwari (Petitioner No.1) entered the room, caught hold of her
from behind and pushed her onto the bed. When she raised an alarm, her
mother-in-law Anita Tiwari (Petitioner No.3) allegedly entered the room and
pressed her mouth and asked her not to shout. It was further alleged that in
the meantime, her husband Ankit Tiwari (Petitioner No.2) entered the room
and asked his mother to keep watch outside so that no one would come
inside. Thereafter, her husband committed unnatural sexual intercourse with
her and thereafter her father-in-law committed rape upon her. It was also
alleged that thereafter her husband, mother-in-law and father-in-
law (Petitioners No.1 to 3) threatened her with dire consequences and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8349
3 MCRC-14162-2024
warned her that if she disclosed the incident to anyone, they would kill her
and defame her as well as her family members. The complainant further
stated that due to fear and mental trauma she did not disclose the incident
immediately and remained silent as she feared that disclosure of the incident
might result in the breakdown of her marriage. Subsequently, on 24.09.2023,
she approached the police station along with her father, mother, brother and
maternal aunt and submitted the complaint seeking legal action against the
accused persons. On the basis of the said complaint, the police registered the
aforesaid FIR and commenced investigation. During the course of
investigation, the statement of the complainant under Section 161 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded and her statement under
Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was also recorded
before the learned Magistrate. The complainant was medically examined and
the spot map of the place of occurrence was prepared on her pointing out.
Statements of witnesses, namely, Ram Lakhan Sharma, Prabha Sharma and
Pramila Sharma were recorded during the investigation. The accused persons
Ankit Tiwari and Prahlad Tiwari were arrested and medically examined, and
the preserved samples were sent to the Regional Forensic Science
Laboratory, Gwalior for examination. Accused Anita Tiwari obtained
anticipatory bail from the competent court and was formally arrested and
released on bail in compliance with the said order.
During investigation, the forensic report relating to the samples of
accused Prahlad Tiwari was received from RFSL Gwalior. After completion
of the investigation, the police found prima facie material against the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8349
4 MCRC-14162-2024
accused persons and accordingly filed charge-sheet No.248 of 2023, dated
24.11.2023 before the competent court for offences punishable under
Sections 376, 377, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners No.1 to 3,
namely Prahlad Tiwari, Ankit Tiwari and Smt. Anita Tiwari, submits that the
present petition has been preferred under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashment of the impugned FIR and the
consequential criminal proceedings arising therefrom, as the same are
nothing but a gross abuse of the process of law and have been initiated with
an oblique motive to harass and pressurize the petitioners.
It is further submitted that the marriage between the complainant and
petitioner No.2 Ankit Tiwari was solemnized on 31.05.2022 according to
Hindu rites and customs at Gwalior. After the marriage, the complainant
lived with her husband and family members for some time at the matrimonial
home at Ghaziabad and thereafter accompanied petitioner No.2 to Hyderabad
where he was employed in a private job. Subsequently, in the year 2023
petitioner No.2 was transferred from Hyderabad to Delhi, after which the
complainant and petitioner No.2 started residing together at Ghaziabad along
with petitioner Nos.1 and 3. During this entire period, no complaint
whatsoever was made by the complainant to any authority alleging any act of
cruelty, sexual assault, dowry demand or harassment on the part of the
petitioners.
Learned counsel further submits that the present (first) FIR bearing
Crime No.378/2023 came to be registered on 24.09.2023 in relation to an
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8349
5 MCRC-14162-2024
alleged incident dated 25.03.2023. There is an inordinate and unexplained
delay of about six months in lodging the said FIR. Even according to the
prosecution story, after the alleged incident dated 25.03.2023 the
complainant returned to her matrimonial home and continued to reside with
the petitioners for a considerable period of time without raising any protest or
complaint. Such conduct is wholly unnatural and raises serious doubts about
the veracity of the allegations. It is further submitted that the allegations
made in the said FIR are inherently improbable and do not inspire
confidence, particularly when it is alleged that such a serious incident took
place at the parental home of the complainant and yet no immediate
complaint was made to any family member or to the police authorities.
It is also submitted that the second FIR bearing Crime No.468/2023
registered on 05.12.2023 under Sections 498-A and 406 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 along with the provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
has been lodged thereafter. A bare perusal of the said FIR would reveal that
there is not even a whisper or reference to the earlier FIR bearing Crime
No.378/2023, which had already been registered prior to the lodging of the
second FIR. The complete omission to disclose the pendency of the earlier
criminal case clearly indicates that the second FIR has been lodged as an
independent complaint in order to give a different colour to the matrimonial
dispute between the parties.
It is further submitted that although the FIR alleges offences under
Sections 376, 377, 506, and 34 IPC, the charges framed on 13.12.2024 do not
include Section 377 IPC. This demonstrates that the prosecution found no
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8349
6 MCRC-14162-2024
material to substantiate this specific allegation. The omission highlights the
inconsistencies and improvements in the prosecution's case, underscores the
vague and omnibus nature of the allegations, and shows that the FIR and
proceedings are being used to harass the petitioners
Learned counsel submits that the complainant has alleged in the said
second FIR that all the accused persons jointly demanded dowry from her
and had also demanded dowry from her on 25.03.2023 at her house situated
in Alkapuri. However, the said allegation itself creates a serious
contradiction in the prosecution story inasmuch as the same date, i.e.,
25.03.2023, forms the foundation of the earlier FIR wherein entirely different
allegations have been levelled by the complainant. In the earlier FIR as well
as in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, the complainant has alleged that on the said date, the
petitioners committed acts of sexual assault, whereas in the subsequent FIR
the complainant merely alleges a demand of dowry on the same date and at
the same place. Thus, the complainant has given mutually inconsistent and
improved versions regarding the alleged incident dated 25.03.2023, which
clearly casts a serious doubt on the truthfulness and credibility of the
allegations.
It is further submitted that apart from such vague, general and omnibus
allegations, there is no specific or distinct allegation constituting the alleged
offences against the present petitioners. The allegations of dowry demand
and cruelty have been levelled against several family members in a sweeping
and mechanical manner without attributing any specific overt act to any
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8349
7 MCRC-14162-2024
particular accused. Such omnibus allegations are clearly insufficient to
attract the ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioners.
Learned counsel further submits that petitioner No.1 Prahlad Tiwari is
an elderly person aged about 65 years and petitioner No.3 Smt. Anita Tiwari
is a homemaker, and they have been unnecessarily implicated along with
other family members only with the intention of exerting pressure upon
petitioner No.2. It is contended that the complainant has attempted to rope in
almost every member of the matrimonial family in order to give a serious
colour to what is essentially a matrimonial dispute.
It is also submitted that the conduct of the complainant in successively
lodging multiple FIRs based on inconsistent versions of the same incident
clearly indicates that the criminal law machinery has been set into motion
with mala fide intention. The continuation of the criminal proceedings
against the petitioners in such circumstances would amount to a clear abuse
of the process of law.
Learned counsel submits that it is well settled that the inherent powers
of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 are meant to prevent abuse of the process of the court and to secure the
ends of justice. In the present case, even if the allegations made in the
impugned FIR are taken at their face value, the same do not disclose the
commission of any cognizable offence against the present petitioners and the
prosecution appears to be manifestly attended with mala fide intention.
In view of the aforesaid submissions, it is prayed that this Court may
be pleased to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8349
8 MCRC-14162-2024
(482 of the CrPC) and quash the impugned FIRs as well as all consequential
criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners.
Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State as well as learned
counsel for the complainant oppose the petitions and submit that the
allegations made by the complainant disclose the commission of serious
cognizable offences and, therefore, the impugned FIRs and the consequent
criminal proceedings cannot be quashed at the threshold in exercise of the
inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973. It is contended that the complainant has made specific
allegations against the petitioners regarding sexual assault, cruelty and dowry
demand and the same are reflected in the FIR as well as in her statements
recorded during the course of investigation. It is further submitted that during
the course of investigation the statement of the complainant was recorded
under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and thereafter
her statement was also recorded before the learned Magistrate under Section
164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 wherein she has reiterated and
supported the allegations made in the complaint. Learned counsel submit that
after completion of the investigation, the police have filed the charge-sheet
against the accused persons for offences punishable under Sections 376, 377,
506, 498A and 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as
well as under the provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, and the
trial court has taken cognizance of the same. Learned counsel further submit
that the trial in the matter has already commenced and the
complainant/prosecutrix has been examined before the trial court and her
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8349
9 MCRC-14162-2024
cross-examination is presently going on. It is therefore argued that at this
advanced stage, the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ought not to be exercised, particularly
when the contentions raised by the petitioners involve disputed questions of
fact which can only be adjudicated upon after appreciation of evidence
during the course of trial. Accordingly, it is submitted that the present
petitions deserve to be dismissed.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties at length and upon
perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the marriage
between the complainant and petitioner No.2 Ankit Tiwari was solemnized
on 31.05.2022 and thereafter the parties resided together for some time at
different places including Hyderabad and Ghaziabad. The first FIR bearing
Crime No.378/2023 came to be registered on 24.09.2023 in respect of an
alleged incident dated 25.03.2023. There appears to be a considerable and
unexplained delay in lodging the said FIR. Even according to the prosecution
version, after the alleged incident the complainant returned to her
matrimonial home and continued to reside with the petitioners for a
considerable period of time without raising any immediate protest or
complaint. Such conduct prima facie appears to be unnatural and creates
serious doubts regarding the genuineness of the allegations.
It is also noteworthy that subsequently another FIR bearing Crime
No.468/2023 dated 05.12.2023 was lodged under Sections 498A and 406 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 along with the provisions of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961. A perusal of the said FIR reveals that there is no
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8349
10 MCRC-14162-2024
reference whatsoever to the earlier FIR which had already been registered.
The complainant has further alleged in the said FIR that all the accused
persons demanded dowry from her and had also made such demand on
25.03.2023 at her house situated in Alkapuri. Thus, with respect to the very
same date and place, the complainant has set forth entirely different
allegations in the two FIRs. In the earlier impugned FIR she has alleged acts
of sexual assault whereas in the subsequent FIR she attributes allegations of
dowry demand on the very same date. Such materially inconsistent and
improved versions create serious doubts about the credibility of the
prosecution case.
It is noted that the prosecutrix was married to Petitioner No.2, Ankit
Tiwari, on 31.05.2022 according to Hindu rites and customs. Following the
marriage, she continued to reside with the petitioners at different locations,
including Ghaziabad and Hyderabad. Despite the alleged incident on
25.03.2023, the prosecutrix continued to reside with the petitioners for
several months without raising any complaint or objection. Such conduct,
prima facie, appears unnatural and raises serious doubts as to the
genuineness of the allegations made in the FIR.
During the course of investigation, the Sixth Additional Sessions
Judge, Gwalior District, M.P., framed charges on 13.12.2024 against the
petitioners. Petitioner No.1/Prahlad Tiwari was charged with rape under
Section 376 IPC and criminal intimidation under Section 506(2) IPC.
Petitioner No.2/Ankit Tiwari was charged with abetment of rape under
Section 376 read with Section 109 IPC and criminal intimidation under
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8349
11 MCRC-14162-2024
Section 506(2) IPC. Petitioner No.3/Anita Tiwari was charged with abetment
of rape under Section 376 read with Section 109 IPC and criminal
intimidation under Section 506(2) IPC, including the act of covering the
prosecutrix's mouth during the alleged offence. It is noteworthy that although
Section 377 IPC had been referenced in the FIR, it has not been included in
the charges framed by the competent court. Thus, now the determination is
confined only to Sections 376, 109 and 506(2) of IPC.
It is well settled by the Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal
(1992 Supp (1) SCC 335) that the High Court's inherent powers under
Section 482 of the Code are to be exercised not only where there is no prima
facie case but also to prevent abuse of the process of the court or otherwise
to secure the ends of justice. The Supreme Court observed that while precise
and rigid guidelines cannot be laid down, the exercise of inherent power
necessarily depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and includes
situations where continuation of criminal proceedings would be oppressive,
vexatious, or would otherwise defeat justice.
It is also well settled that while considering a petition under Section
482 of the Code, the Court is not restricted to a mere perusal of the
averments made in the FIR or complaint. As observed by the Supreme Court
in Mohammad Wajid & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2023 INSC
683), in frivolous or vexatious proceedings the court must look into the
attending circumstances emerging from the record beyond just the surface
allegations and, with due care and circumspection, read between the lines to
determine whether continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8349
12 MCRC-14162-2024
process of law or otherwise defeat the ends of justice. Delay in lodging an
FIR, combined with other circumstances such as lack of plausible
explanation and inherent improbability, may justify quashing the FIR and all
consequential proceedings.
Similarly, in Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, reported
in AIR 1998 SC 128 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that summoning of
an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and criminal law cannot be
set into motion as a matter of course. The Apex Court further observed that
the High Court is empowered to interfere where continuation of the criminal
proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of the court.
Further, in Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar, AIR 2022 SC 820, it
was reiterated that in matrimonial disputes, when allegations are made
against relatives in a vague, general and omnibus manner without attributing
specific acts, the continuation of proceedings may constitute misuse of the
legal process. The Court emphasized that the High Court may consider the
totality of circumstances, including delay in lodging complaints, inconsistent
versions, familial relationships, and other surrounding circumstances, in
determining whether to quash proceedings.
In the present case, the circumstances discussed hereinabove clearly
reveal that the prosecution story is marred by material inconsistencies and
subsequent improvements, particularly in relation to the alleged incident
dated 25.03.2023. It is further noteworthy that the complainant subsequently
lodged another FIR without disclosing the existence of the earlier criminal
proceedings, which raises serious doubts regarding her bona fides and the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8349
13 MCRC-14162-2024
credibility of the allegations made. This Court also finds the conduct of
respondent No. 2 to be highly unnatural. If such a grave and gruesome
incident had indeed occurred, it is difficult to comprehend how she would
remain silent for a considerable period of nearly six months and refrain from
disclosing the same even to her parental family, merely on the ground of
saving her marriage. Moreover, there is nothing on record to suggest that any
new circumstance or situation arose during this intervening period which
could have compelled her to suddenly lodge the present complaint. In such
circumstances, permitting the criminal proceedings to continue would
amount to a clear abuse of the process of the Court.
Accordingly, in view of the foregoing discussion and in order to
secure the ends of justice, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
present petitions deserve to be allowed. Consequently, the petitions filed
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 are allowed and
the impugned FIR, dated 24.09.2023 bearing Crime No.378 of 2023
registered at Police Station University, District Gwalior for the offence
punishable under Sections 376, 377, 506, 34 of IPC and all consequential
criminal proceedings initiated therefrom against the present petitioners are
hereby quashed.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
pwn*
