[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Prakash @ Kallu Kirad Bhilala vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 March, 2026
Author: Subodh Abhyankar
Bench: Subodh Abhyankar
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:6873
1 MCRC-48403-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR
ON THE 13 th OF MARCH, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 48403 of 2025
PRAKASH @ KALLU KIRAD BHILALA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Mohd. Rafik Sheikh - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Hemant Sharma- G.A. for the State.
Shri Rakesh Kumar Ahirwar- Advocate for the respondent No.2.
ORDER
1] They are heard. Perused the case-diary/ record.
2] This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023/482 of Cr.P.C., for quashing the FIR
lodged at Crime No.91/2022 registered at Police Station - Ambua, District
Alirajpur under Sections 498-A, 323 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and all other
subsequent proceedings arising out of the said crime number.
3] In brief, the story of the prosecution is that the aforesaid FIR was filed
by the respondent No.2/complainant Smt.Jamna Kirad, alleging her ill treatment at
the hands of her in laws, including her husband Gopal, mother-in-law Amna,
brother-in-law Prakash @ Kalu, sisters-in-law Manju, Sunita and Sangeeta, as also
brother-in-law Rajendra.
4] Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that only omnibus allegations
have been levelled against the petitioner because of his relationship with the
husband of the respondent No.2, who is the brother of the petitioner, and only on
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:6873
2 MCRC-48403-2025
account of the said criminal case, the petitioner's entire future is at stake as he has
already passed MPPSC State Eligibility Test-2022 for Assistant Professor; the
Certificate regarding which is also filed on record, and thus, it is submitted that the
petition be allowed and the FIR so far as it relates to the petitioner be quashed.
5] Counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the husband of the
respondent No.2 has also agreed to pay Rs.10,000 as her maintenance. It is also
submitted that on one hand the respondent No.2 has filed objection in the present
petition, whereas the complainant is not appearing in the Trial Court. In support of
his submissions, counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the decision
rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Preeti Gupta and Another Vs. State
of Jharkhand and Another, passed in Criminal Appeal No.1512/2010 (Arising out
of SLP (Criminal) No.4684/2009), dated 13.08.2010 , Neelu Chopra and another
Vs. Bharti, reported as (2009) 10 SCC 184 , Geeta Mehrotra and another Vs. State
of Uttar Pradesh and another, reported as AIR 2013 SC 181 , as also the decision
rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Ors.
Vs. State of Bihar, reported as (2022) 6 SCC 599. Reliance is also placed on the
decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Abhishek Vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh passed in Criminal Appeal No.1457 of 2015 dated 31.08.2023
reported as 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1083.
6] The prayer is opposed by the State, as also the counsel for the respondent
No.2, and it is submitted that the petitioner was also involved in harassing the
respondent No.2.
7] Heard. Having considered the rival submissions and on perusal of the
case-diary, it is found that the cause of action in the FIR is stated to be between
29.06.2021 to 03.04.2022, whereas, the FIR has also been lodged on 03.04.2022
itself. In the FIR, allegations of ill treatment of the respondent No.2/complainant
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:6873
3 MCRC-48403-2025
have been made against all the six family members of the complainant's husband
Gopal. Even the name of the complainant's sister-in-law Sangeeta's husband has
also been taken, as also three sisters-in-law, out of which, two have already been
married to other places. In the MLC it is found that one injury appears to have
suffered by the complainant, which is also simple in nature, although the incident
of maar peet according to the complainant took place on 26.02.2022, and the FIR
has been lodged on 03.04.2022. Thus, even the genesis of the aforesaid injury,
which has been found by the doctor of 03.04.2022, is doubtful. This Court also
finds that the petitioner has already passed the State Eligibility Test for Assistant
Professor, as has been certified by the Chairman of Steering Committee, MP-SET
dated 08.01.2024, and there is no doubt that the present case must have caused
considerable hardship to the petitioner; and taking into account the decision
rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Abhishek (Supra) which deals with
the growing tendency of falsely implicating the family members of the husband in
a matrimonial dispute, wherein the Supreme Court has held as under:-
"13. Instances of a husband's family members filing a petition to quash
criminal proceedings launched against them by his wife in the midst of
matrimonial disputes are neither a rarity nor of recent origin. Precedents
aplenty abound on this score. We may now take note of some decisions of
particular relevance. Recently, in Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam v. State of
Bihar [(2022) 6 SCC 599], this Court had occasion to deal with a similar
situation where the High Court had refused to quash a FIR registered for
various offences, including Section 498A IPC. Noting that the foremost issue
that required determination was whether allegations made against the in-laws
were general omnibus allegations which would be liable to be quashed, this
Court referred to earlier decisions wherein concern was expressed over the
misuse of Section 498A IPC and the increased tendency to implicate relatives
of the husband in matrimonial disputes. This Court observed that false
implications by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of
matrimonial disputes, if left unchecked, would result in misuse of the process
of law. On the facts of that case, it was found that no specific allegations were
made against the in-laws by the wife and it was held that allowing their
prosecution in the absence of clear allegations against the in-laws would result
in an abuse of the process of law. It was also noted that a criminal trial,
leading to an eventual acquittal, would inflict severe scars upon the accused
and such an exercise ought to be discouraged."
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:6873
4 MCRC-48403-2025
(Emphasis Supplied)
8] In view of the aforesaid, and considering the fact that only omnibus
allegations have been levelled against the family members of the applicant's
husband, this Court has no hesitation to come to a conclusion that the present
petition is a fit case where the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. can be exercised to meet the ends of justice, and to ensure that the
petitioner is not persecuted any further.
9] In view of the same, the petition stands allowed, and the FIR lodged at
Crime No.91/2022 registered at Police Station - Ambua, District Alirajpur under
Sections 498-A, 323 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and all other subsequent
proceedings arising out of the said crime number, pending against the petitioner,
are hereby quashed.
10] With the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed and disposed of .
(SUBODH ABHYANKAR)
JUDGE
Bahar
