[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Aman Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 March, 2026
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8556
1 MCRC-35667-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 11th OF MARCH, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 35667 of 2025
AMAN SHARMA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Arun Kumar Paterya - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Harish Sharma - Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
ORDER
This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the
petitioner seeking quashment of FIR bearing crime No. 249/2025 registered
at Police Station Mahila Thana District Gwalior for offence punishable under
Section 85, 296, 351(3), 3(5) of BNS and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition
Act and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
2. As per the prosecution case, the marriage of respondent No. 2 was
solemnized on 18 January 2025 with Arun Sharma, son of Deenanath
Sharma, resident of Ganesh Bagh Colony, Bahodapur, District Gwalior, in
accordance with traditional Hindu rites and rituals. At the time of the
marriage, her parents provided dowry and gifts as per the demands made by
the groom's family. These included a gold ring for the groom, cash
amounting to Rs.31,00,000/-, complete household articles, approximately 10
tolas of gold jewelry for the complainant, and clothes and other items for the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8556
2 MCRC-35667-2025
entire family. In total, approximately Rs.44,00,000/- was spent by her family
on the marriage ceremony and related arrangements. However, within a few
days after the marriage, her husband Arun Sharma, her mother-in-law Anita
Sharma, her father-in-law Deenanath Sharma, and her brother-in-law Aman
Sharma (the present petitioner) allegedly began harassing her on the ground
that the dowry given by her parents was insufficient. It is further alleged that
her gold and silver jewelry remained in the custody of her mother-in-law
and, despite repeated requests, the same was not returned to her. The accused
persons allegedly taunted her frequently by stating that she had brought very
little dowry and that their son had received thousands of marriage proposals.
According to the prosecution, thereafter her in-laws started humiliating and
harassing her over trivial issues, alleging that the articles provided by her
father were of inferior quality. It is also alleged that they subjected her to
physical assault. Despite such mental and physical harassment, she continued
to tolerate the situation in the hope that circumstances would improve with
the passage of time. The prosecution further alleges that the accused persons
ultimately forced her to leave the matrimonial home, stating that she would
only be allowed to reside there if she brought Rs.10,00,000/- in cash and a
four-wheeler vehicle from her parental family as additional dowry. When she
informed them that her parents were not financially capable of fulfilling such
a demand, her husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law, and brother-in-law
allegedly assaulted her, used abusive language against her and her family
members, and threatened to kill her parents. They further warned that if the
demanded amount of Rs.10,00,000/- and a four-wheeler vehicle were not
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8556
3 MCRC-35667-2025
provided, they would kill her. It is further alleged that thereafter she was
expelled from the matrimonial house along with her brother. Her parents
subsequently made several attempts to persuade her husband and his family
members to resolve the dispute amicably; however, they allegedly remained
adamant in their demand for additional dowry and threatened that if the
demanded Rs.10,00,000/- and a four-wheeler vehicle were not provided, they
would kill her. Thereafter, she returned to her parental home along with her
brother and narrated the entire incident to her parents. Being deeply
distressed and aggrieved by the alleged acts of harassment, she eventually
lodged a complaint at the Women Police Station, Padav, Gwalior. Pursuant
to the complaint, counseling sessions were conducted on 06.03.2025,
03.04.2025, 25.04.2025, and 22.05.2025; however, no settlement or
resolution could be arrived at during these proceedings. Consequently, the
impugned FIR came to be registered.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and the allegations
made in the FIR are vague, omnibus and general in nature without any
specific overt act attributed to the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner's elder brother,
Mr. Arun Sharma, has been pursuing his studies at the Government
Ayurvedic College, Rewa (M.P.) since the year 2019 and has been residing
at Rewa in connection with his studies. The marriage of the petitioner's elder
brother, Mr. Arun Sharma, was solemnized with respondent No. 2, Mrs.
Jyoti Sharma, according to Hindu rites and rituals. After the marriage, Mr.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8556
4 MCRC-35667-2025
Arun Sharma and respondent No. 2 started residing together at Rewa.
5. It is submitted that certain matrimonial disputes unfortunately arose
between Mr. Arun Sharma and respondent No. 2 while they were residing at
Rewa. Owing to the said disputes, within a short span after the marriage,
both of them started living separately from 01.03.2025. On the basis of a
complaint submitted by respondent No. 2, counselling proceedings were
initiated at the Women Police Station, Gwalior. During the said counselling
proceedings also, both parties expressed their willingness to live separately
and no settlement could be arrived at between them.
6. It is further submitted that thereafter the petitioner's brother, Mr.
Arun Sharma, initiated legal proceedings for judicial separation against
respondent No. 2 before the competent Court. The petitioner herein is merely
the younger brother of the husband and is a 19-year-old student having no
criminal antecedents. He has been unnecessarily roped in the present case
only because of his relationship with the husband of respondent No. 2. The
FIR does not disclose any specific role or overt act on the part of the
petitioner and only general and omnibus allegations have been made against
all family members of the husband.
7. It is further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
repeatedly cautioned that in matrimonial disputes there is a growing
tendency to implicate all relatives of the husband by making sweeping and
omnibus allegations and criminal proceedings against such relatives should
not be allowed to continue in the absence of specific allegations. The
continuation of the criminal proceedings against the present petitioner, who
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8556
5 MCRC-35667-2025
is a young student and against whom no specific allegation has been made,
would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Therefore, it is humbly
prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to exercise its inherent
powers and quash the impugned FIR and all consequential proceedings in so
far as they relate to the present petitioner.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the
present petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking quashment of the
FIR is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed at the threshold. It is
contended that the FIR as well as the material collected during the
preliminary stage of investigation disclose specific allegations regarding
persistent harassment, demand of additional dowry and acts of intimidation
committed by the accused persons, including the present petitioner, in
furtherance of their common intention. At the stage of considering a petition
for quashment, this Hon'ble Court is only required to examine whether the
allegations made in the FIR, if taken at their face value, disclose the
commission of cognizable offences, and it is well settled that a meticulous
appreciation of evidence or determination of the veracity of the allegations is
impermissible at this stage. The allegations made by the complainant cannot
be brushed aside merely on the ground that the petitioner is a relative of the
husband or a student, as the FIR clearly attributes involvement of all family
members in the acts of cruelty, demand of dowry and threats extended to the
complainant. Whether the petitioner actually participated in the alleged acts
or not is a matter which can only be determined during the course of
investigation and trial on the basis of evidence led before the competent
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8556
6 MCRC-35667-2025
court. Therefore, in view of the settled legal position that inherent
jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised sparingly and only
in the rarest of cases to prevent abuse of process of law, the present case
does not warrant any interference by this Hon'ble Court at this stage and the
petition seeking quashment of the FIR is liable to be dismissed.
9. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
10. The scope and ambit of the inherent powers of the High Court
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been elaborately
considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal,
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, wherein it has been held that such power can be
exercised to prevent abuse of the process of law or otherwise to secure the
ends of justice. It has been further held that where the allegations made in the
FIR do not disclose the commission of any offence or where the proceedings
manifestly appear to be attended with mala fide intention, the High Court
would be justified in exercising its inherent jurisdiction to quash such
proceedings.
11. Upon a careful reading of the FIR in the present case, this Court
finds that the allegations regarding harassment and demand of dowry are
primarily directed against the husband and the parents-in-law of the
complainant. In so far as the present petitioner is concerned, the FIR merely
contains general and omnibus allegations without specifying any particular
act attributed to him. There is no specific assertion indicating the manner in
which the petitioner allegedly participated in the demand of dowry or the
alleged acts of cruelty. The FIR does not disclose any particular date,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8556
7 MCRC-35667-2025
incident or overt act involving the petitioner.
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly cautioned that in
matrimonial disputes there is a growing tendency to implicate all relatives of
the husband by making general and omnibus allegations without specifying
their individual role. In Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and others v. State of
Bihar and others, (2022) 6 SCC 599, the Supreme Court observed that courts
must be careful in proceeding against the relatives of the husband when the
allegations are general and sweeping in nature and do not disclose specific
acts of cruelty.
13. Similarly, in Preeti Gupta and another v. State of Jharkhand,
(2010) 7 SCC 667, the Supreme Court noted that a large number of
complaints under matrimonial offences involve exaggerated versions of
incidents and that relatives of the husband are often unnecessarily
implicated.
14. In Geeta Mehrotra and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2012) 10
SCC 741, the Supreme Court held that criminal proceedings against the
relatives of the husband cannot be allowed to continue where the allegations
are vague and do not disclose any specific role.
15. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, it
is evident that the allegations made against the present petitioner are general
in nature and do not disclose any specific act attributable to him. The
petitioner is the younger brother of the husband and is stated to be a 19-year-
old student. The FIR does not disclose any specific instance where the
petitioner individually demanded dowry, assaulted the complainant or
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8556
8 MCRC-35667-2025
participated in any particular act of cruelty. The allegations made in the FIR
are sweeping and omnibus in nature and have been levelled against all family
members collectively without detailing the specific role of the present
petitioner. In such circumstances, allowing the criminal proceedings to
continue against the present petitioner in the absence of specific allegations
would amount to subjecting him to unnecessary harassment and would result
in abuse of the process of law.
16. The inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code
are intended to prevent such misuse of the criminal justice machinery. Where
the allegations against a particular accused are wholly vague and omnibus in
nature and do not prima facie disclose the commission of an offence, the
Court would be justified in exercising its jurisdiction to quash the
proceedings.
17. In view of the foregoing discussion and the settled legal position
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the continuation of criminal proceedings against the present
petitioner would amount to abuse of the process of law.
18. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The FIR bearing Crime No.
249/2025 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, District Gwalior for
offences punishable under Sections 85, 296, 351(3), 3(5) of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act along with all
consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed insofar as
they relate to the present petitioner.
19. It is made clear that the proceedings shall continue in accordance
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8556
9 MCRC-35667-2025
with law against the remaining accused persons.
20. The petition stands allowed and disposed of accordingly.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
ojha
