[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Lokendra Singh Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 March, 2026
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9562
1 MCRC-41197-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 16th OF MARCH, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 41197 of 2024
LOKENDRA SINGH YADAV
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Satendra Singh Rawat - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Harish Sharma - Deputy Govt. Advocate for the respondent
No.1/State.
Shri Sanjeev Kumar Mishra - Advocate and Shri Sunil Mahore -
Advocate for respondent [R-2].
ORDER
The present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashment
of the First Information Report bearing Crime No. 18/2024, registered at
Police Station Mahila Thana, District Gwalior, against the petitioner for the
alleged offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 294, 506 and 34 of
the Indian Penal Code, as well as under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961.
2. As per the prosecution case, the marriage of Respondent No. 2 was
solemnized on 22nd June 2023 with Saurabh Yadav, son of Lokendra Singh,
at Indramani Nagar under Police Station Gole Ka Mandir, Gwalior, in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9562
2 MCRC-41197-2024
accordance with Hindu rites and rituals. At the time of marriage, her family
provided gifts in accordance with their financial capacity. However, soon
after the marriage, her husband and father-in-law expressed dissatisfaction
with the articles given and began demanding additional dowry, including a
car and an air conditioner. It is alleged that her husband subjected her to
physical assault on a regular basis and failed to fulfill his marital obligations
toward her. Her father-in-law, Lokendra Singh, is stated to have supported
and abetted her husband in subjecting her to such cruelty and harassment.
Despite enduring such treatment due to social stigma and in the hope of
preserving her marriage, the situation continued to deteriorate.Being
distressed by the constant harassment and taunts related to dowry demands,
she informed her brother, Mulayam, over the phone. On 27th April 2024, her
brother came to her matrimonial home to meet her, during which her
husband again assaulted her and forcibly pushed her out of the house while
she was in her domestic clothes. Thereafter, she returned to her parental
home at Bhind along with her brother. Subsequently, her parents made
efforts through relatives to resolve the dispute and restore the matrimonial
relationship, but no reconciliation could be reached as her in-laws did not
come forward to take her back. In an attempt to seek an amicable settlement,
she also submitted an application at the concerned police station; however,
no compromise was arrived at. Having failed in all efforts at reconciliation,
she appeared before the authorities to lodge present FIR against her husband
and father-in-law for the acts of cruelty, harassment, and unlawful dowry
demands.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9562
3 MCRC-41197-2024
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present
petitioner, being the father-in-law of the complainant, has been falsely
implicated in the instant matter without there being any specific or credible
allegation attributed to him in the First Information Report. A bare perusal of
the contents of the F.I.R. would demonstrate that the allegations are vague,
omnibus, and general in nature, lacking essential particulars such as the date,
time, and place of the alleged incident. In absence of such foundational
details, the allegations fail to disclose the commission of any cognizable
offence against the present petitioner and are nothing but an abuse of the
process of law.
4. It is further submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person of
about 58 years of age, having no direct role in the alleged matrimonial
dispute between the complainant and her husband. The petitioner has neither
demanded any dowry nor subjected the complainant to any form of physical
or mental harassment. There is not even a whisper in the F.I.R. or the charge-
sheet regarding any specific act of "marpeet" or cruelty attributable to the
present petitioner. The allegations, even if taken at their face value, do not
satisfy the essential ingredients required to constitute an offence under the
relevant provisions relating to dowry demand or cruelty.
5. Learned counsel further submits that respondent No. 2 has lodged a
false and motivated complaint with an ulterior intention to harass the
petitioner and his family members. The entire prosecution case, as reflected
in the charge-sheet, is based on bald and sweeping allegations without any
supporting material or independent evidence. Such mechanical implication
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9562
4 MCRC-41197-2024
of family members, particularly elderly persons, in matrimonial disputes has
been consistently deprecated by the Hon'ble Courts.
6. It is also submitted that continuation of the criminal proceedings
against the petitioner, in the absence of any prima facie case, would result in
gross miscarriage of justice and would amount to misuse of the judicial
process. The inherent powers of this Hon'ble Court are therefore required to
be invoked to prevent abuse of the process of law and to secure the ends of
justice. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is prayed that this
Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash the impugned F.I.R. as well as the
charge-sheet insofar as it relates to the present petitioner, as the same is
devoid of merit and has been instituted with mala fide intent, thereby
constituting a clear abuse of the process of law.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the petition
and submits that the First Information Report and the material collected
during investigation clearly disclose the commission of cognizable offences
under the relevant provisions of law. It is contended that at the stage of
considering a petition for quashment, this Hon'ble Court is not required to
meticulously examine the evidence or adjudicate upon the veracity of the
allegations. A plain reading of the F.I.R. and the statements recorded under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. (now corresponding provisions under the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) reveals that the present petitioner, being the
father-in-law, was not a silent spectator but had actively supported and
abetted the acts of cruelty and dowry demands made by the husband. The
allegations, when taken at face value, prima facie constitute the offences
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9562
5 MCRC-41197-2024
alleged, and the question as to the specific role and involvement of the
petitioner is a matter of trial. It is further submitted that the law relating to
quashment is well settled that proceedings should not be scuttled at the
threshold where the allegations disclose an offence. Therefore, the present
petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed.
8. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 vehemently opposes the
petition and submits that the complainant has made specific and consistent
allegations regarding continuous harassment, cruelty, and unlawful dowry
demands by her husband and the present petitioner, who actively participated
in and encouraged such conduct. It is submitted that the petitioner, being a
senior member of the matrimonial household, exercised significant control
and influence and cannot evade liability by merely claiming absence of direct
involvement. The allegations in the F.I.R., when read in entirety, clearly
depict a pattern of mental and physical cruelty, including active instigation
and support by the petitioner, which squarely attract the offences alleged. It is
further contended that the plea of false implication is a matter of defence and
cannot be adjudicated at this preliminary stage. The complainant has suffered
grave hardship and was ultimately forced to leave her matrimonial home due
to persistent abuse and dowry-related harassment. The present petition is an
attempt to frustrate the legitimate prosecution and deny the complainant an
opportunity to prove her case during trial. Hence, no case for quashment is
made out, and the petition deserves to be dismissed.
9. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
10. The scope of interference under Section 528 of the Bharatiya
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9562
6 MCRC-41197-2024
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is well settled. Such jurisdiction is to be
exercised sparingly, with circumspection, and only in cases where the
allegations made in the First Information Report, even if taken at their face
value and accepted in their entirety, do not disclose the commission of any
offence or where the proceedings manifestly amount to an abuse of the
process of law.
11. In the present case, a careful reading of the F.I.R. as well as the
material collected during investigation reveals that the allegations against the
present petitioner, who is the father-in-law of the complainant, are general
and omnibus in nature. The prosecution story, insofar as it concerns the
petitioner, lacks specific particulars with regard to the time, place, and
manner of the alleged acts of cruelty or dowry demand. No distinct or overt
act has been attributed to the petitioner except for a bald assertion that he
supported the husband. Such sweeping allegations, without any concrete
instance or supporting material, do not satisfy the essential ingredients
required to constitute offences under Sections 498-A, 323, 294, 506, and 34
of the Indian Penal Code or Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,
1961.
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal
reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 has categorically laid down that where
the allegations made in the F.I.R. are so absurd and inherently improbable
that no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient
ground for proceeding against the accused, the Court would be justified in
exercising its inherent powers to quash such proceedings. Similarly, in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9562
7 MCRC-41197-2024
Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v. State of Bihar reported in 2022 SCC
OnLine SC 162, the Apex Court has deprecated the tendency of implicating
relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes on the basis of vague and
omnibus allegations, and has held that in the absence of specific allegations,
continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process of
law. The same principle has been reiterated in Geeta Mehrotra v. State of
U.P. reported in (2012) 10 SCC 741 and Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand
reported in (2010) 7 SCC 667, wherein it has been observed that courts must
be cautious in proceeding against distant or elderly relatives when no
specific role is attributed to them.
13. Applying the aforesaid settled principles to the facts of the present
case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the allegations levelled
against the petitioner do not disclose any prima facie case. The implication of
the petitioner appears to be a result of generalized accusations arising out of
a matrimonial discord primarily between the husband and the complainant.
Permitting the criminal proceedings to continue against the petitioner, in the
absence of any specific and credible material, would result in undue
harassment and would amount to misuse of the criminal justice system.
14. Accordingly, in order to secure the ends of justice and to prevent
abuse of the process of law, this Court deems it appropriate to invoke its
inherent jurisdiction.
15. Consequently, the present petition is allowed. The First
Information Report bearing Crime No. 18/2024 registered at Police Station
Mahila Thana, District Gwalior, as well as the charge-sheet and all
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9562
8 MCRC-41197-2024
consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed insofar as
they relate to the present petitioner.
16. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
ojha
