[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Atul Gautam vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24390
1 MCRC-10932-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIMANSHU JOSHI
ON THE 18th OF MARCH, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 10932 of 2023
ATUL GAUTAM AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Manish Datt - Senior Advocate with Shri Amardeep Seth -
Advocate for the petitioners.
Smt. Pushpanjaly Dwivedi - Panel Lawyer for the State.
Shri Manan Agrawal - Advocate for respondent No.2.
ORDER
The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR registered in Crime No.198/2022 dated
26.11.2022 at Mahila Police Station, Rewa District Rewa (M.P) for offences
punishable under Sections 498-A, 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC and
Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. Facts of the case in short are that the complainant/respondent No.2
lodged a report at Mahila Police Station Rewa stating that she was married to
the petitioner No.1, Atul Gautam on 21.02.2019 in accordance with Hindu
Rites and Rituals. It is alleged that an incident occurred during the period
from 22.02.2019 to 12.08.2022, between approximately 13:00 and 14:00
hours. Based on these allegations, an FIR was lodged on 26.11.2022,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24390
2 MCRC-10932-2023
wherein it is claimed that the petitioners subjected the complainant
(Respondent No. 2) to physical and mental harassment in connection with
demands for dowry.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have
been falsely implicated in the present matter and are innocent. It is submitted
that after marriage, the petitioner No.1 and respondent No. 2 resided together
in a rented accommodation at Gurugram, Haryana. It is further submitted that
the marriage between the petitioner No. 1 and respondent No.2 was a love-
cum-arranged marriage. The petitioner No.1 is stated to be a man of integrity
who honored his commitment to marry the respondent No.2 despite being
aware of her short-tempered nature and past life. It is also submitted that the
petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 had known each other since their school
days and were in a courtship for approximately nine years prior to their
marriage. During her short stay at the matrimonial home, the parents of
petitioner No. 1 took very good care of the respondent No.2 and did not
require her to perform any household chores, as they managed all such
responsibilities themselves. He has further argued that within one or two
months of the their marriage, the respondent No.2 began taunting the
petitioner No.1 about his low salary and constantly complained about his
modest income and employment. It is further submitted that the respondent
No.2 has been residing separately from the petitioners for the past one year.
It is further submitted that respondent No.2 has on several occasions,
threatened to commit suicide from time to time. There is no evidence
available on record to make out the offences alleged against the petitioners.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24390
3 MCRC-10932-2023
They have neither demanded any dowry nor subjected the respondent No. 2
to any form of harassment. Ever since their marriage, the petitioners No.2 to
5 have been residing separately. It is further submitted that they are living
independently and have no direct day-to-day involvement in the matrimonial
affairs of the complainant and her husband (petitioner No.1). Hence, their
implication in the present case is wholly false and appears to be made with
an ulterior motive. Therefore, the FIR be quashed and present petition be
allowed.
4. Learned Panel Lawyer for the State as well as counsel for the
respondent No.2 opposed the contentions of learned counsel for the
petitioners and prays for dismissal of petition. It is submitted by learned
counsel for the respondent No.2 that the complainant lodged a First
Information Report on 26.11.2022 at Mahila Police Station Rewa District
Rewa clearly narrating that after her marriage with the petitioner No.1 on
21.02.2019, she was subjected to continuous harassment, physical and mental
cruelty and dowry demands by her husband and in-laws. It is submitted by
counsel for the respondent No.2 that at the time of marriage, the parents of
respondent No.2, as per the alleged demands of the petitioners provided
household articles, gold and silver jewellery and clothing worth
approximately Rs.30,00,000/- along with an additional sum of Rs.6,00,000/-
in cash. The parents of respondent No.2 also bore the entire cost of the
marriage ceremony. Thereafter, following the wedding, the respondent No.2
moved to her matrimonial home at Rewa and fulfilled all her marital
obligations with utmost sincerity and respect. After their marriage, the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24390
4 MCRC-10932-2023
petitioners began taunting the respondent No. 2 for allegedly bringing
inadequate dowry. They repeatedly remarked, 'We thought you would bring
substantial dowry since our son is well-settled and qualified. What have your
parents given us?' the respondent No. 2 silently endured such taunts in order
to preserve her matrimonial life. He has further argued that on account of
petitioner No.1 being employed in Gurugram, the respondent No.2 also
moved to Gurugram along with him. Thereafter, the petitioners No.2 to 5
started demanding dowry and threatened the respondent No.2 with dire
consequences in case their demands were not met, stating that they would
make her life unbearable. During Diwali in the year 2020, the respondent
No. 2 along with petitioner No.1 visited the residence of petitioners No.2 to
5, where she was forced to leave the house due to non-fulfilment of the said
dowry demands. Consequently, the respondent No.2 returned to Gurugram to
reside with petitioner No. 1. During Diwali in 2021, the respondent No.2
visited Rewa and spent approximately 3-4 days at her in-laws' residence.
The in-laws continued to harass her on the ground of allegedly bringing
inadequate dowry. They even forced her to leave the house, pressuring her to
provide an exorbitant sum towards dowry. Learned counsel for the
respondent No.2 further submits that the petitioner No.1 returned to
Gurugram and on 07.12.2021 moved to Kochi upon securing a better job
there. He assured the respondent No.2 that after settling in Kochi, he would
bring her to reside with him. Meanwhile, the respondent No.2 remained
alone in Gurugram. The petitioner neither supported his legally wedded wife
financially nor emotionally. Consequently, the respondent No.2 was
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24390
5 MCRC-10932-2023
compelled to move into an affordable rented accommodation. She even
visited her in-laws' residence to ascertain the whereabouts of petitioner No.1,
but without success. Due to the immense emotional distress, the respondent
No.2 was unable to undertake any employment. He has further argued that on
account of such harsh behavior, the respondent No.2 was left with no choice
but to return to her parental home at Rewa, and since 12.08.2022, she has
been residing with her parents. Despite all the cruelties inflicted upon her by
the petitiones, the respondent No.2 solely for the purpose of preserving her
matrimonial home, did not lodge any FIR at that stage. On 26.07.2022, the
respondent No.2 filed a written complaint before the Mahila Thana,
Gurugram. Pursuant to the complaint, the Police Authorities repeatedly
summoned the petitioner No. 1 for counselling; however, he appeared only
once and refused to live with Respondent No.2. Hence, it is prayed that the
present petition be dismissed with costs.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.
6. Perusal of the case record reveals that the marriage between petitioner
No.1 and the respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 21.02.2019 at Rewa. The
FIR indicates that the conduct of petitioner No.1 (husband) and his family
members was allegedly cruel and aggressive towards respondent No.2. It is
further stated that pursuant to the alleged demands made by the petitioners,
the parents of respondent No.2 provided household articles, gold and silver
jewellery and clothing worth approximately Rs.30,00,000/- along with an
additional sum of Rs.6,00,000/- in cash. The FIR further reveals that apart
from the petitioner No.1, other family members have also been implicated in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24390
6 MCRC-10932-2023
the alleged offences.
7. In the case of State of Haryana Vs. BhajanLal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC
335 , the Supreme Court has laid down following principles for the exercise
of the jurisdiction by the High Court in exercise of its powers under Section
482 CrPC to quash an FIR or charge sheet as well as criminal proceedings:-
"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the
various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter
XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this
Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of
the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the
inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC which we
have extracted and reproduced above, we give the
following categories of cases by way of illustration
wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent
abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure
the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay
down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently
channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae
and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases
wherein such power should be exercised.
(1) 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.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report
and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do
not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an
investigation by police officers under Section 156(1)
CrPC except under an order of a Magistrate within the
purview of Section 155(2) CrPC.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in 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.
(4) 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) Cr.P.C.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24390
7 MCRC-10932-2023
(5) 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.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any
of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned
(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.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended
with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is
maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to
spite him due to private and personal grudge."
8. Regarding initiation of the criminal proceedings against the husband and
his family members after the divorce petition/restitution of conjugal rights is
filed by the husband reference may also be had to the decision of the
Supreme Court in the case of Kamlesh Kalra Vs. Shilpika Kalr And Ors.
reported in 2020 (4) JKJ 176, the Supreme Court has held as under:-
"15. As regards, the finding recorded by the High Court
in respect of complaint/FIR filed under Section 498A
IPC, we are of the firm opinion that the same does not
call for interference. In the facts of this case, it is clear
that the FIR filed in this regard in 2015 was time barred,
having been filed much more than three years after the
separation of xxxx (husband) and xxxx (wife) and the
filing of the divorce petition by the husband, both in
2009. In the facts of the case, the reasons given by the
High Court for quashing the proceedings under section
498A IPC are justified and do not call for interference
by this Court."
9. Similarly, in the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Ors. Vs. State
of Bihar and Ors. reported in 2022 Legal Eagle (SC) 142 Criminal Appeal
No.195/2022 (arising out of a SLP (Crl) No.6545/2020 dated 08.02.2022 the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24390
8 MCRC-10932-2023
Supreme Court has dealt with the growing tendency in matrimonial disputes
to lodge false FIR against the husband and his family members u/s.498-A of
IPC to settle the personal scores against them, and it is held as under:-
"12. Before we delve into greater detail on the nature
and content of allegations made, it becomes pertinent to
mention that incorporation of Section 498-A of the IPC
was aimed at preventing cruelty committed upon a
woman by her husband and her in-laws, by facilitating
rapid State intervention. However, it is equally true, that
in recent times, matrimonial litigation in the country has
also increased significantly and there is a greater is
affection and friction surrounding the institution of
marriage, now, more than ever. This has resulted in an
increased tendency to employ provisions such as
Section 498-A IPC as instruments to settle personal
scores against the husband and his relatives."
10. The landmark judgment of this Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of
Bihar Anr. (2014) 8 SCC 273 it was also observed:-
"4. There is a phenomenal increase in matrimonial
disputes in recent years. The institution of marriage is
greatly revered in this country. Section 498-AIPC was
introduced with avowed object to combat the menace of
harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband and
his relatives. The fact that Section 498-AIPC is a
cognizable and non-bailable offence has lent it a
dubious place of pride amongst the provisions that are
used as weapons rather than shield by disgruntled
wives. The simplest way to harass is to get the husband
and his relatives arrested under this provision. In quite a
number of cases, bedridden grandfathers and
grandmothers of the husbands, their sisters living
abroad for decades are arrested."
11. Further in Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand & Anr. (2010) 7 SCC 667
it has also been observed:-
"32. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24390
9 MCRC-10932-2023
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 is also a matter of serious concern.
33. The learned members of the Bar have enormous
social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the
social fibre 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 earned
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 fibre, 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.
34. 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
the complainant, accused and his close relations.
35. 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 the husband
and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon.
At times, even after the conclusion of the 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 scrutinised with great care and
circumspection.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24390
10 MCRC-10932-2023
36. 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 an amicable settlement altogether. The
process of suffering is extremely long and painful."
12. The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this Court has
at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of Section 498-A
IPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in
matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long-term ramifications of a trial
on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said
judgments that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made
in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse
of the process of law.
13. Therefore, this Court by way of its judgments has warned the Courts
from proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no
prima-facie case is made out against them. It is undisputed fact that the
marriage between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 was solemnized on
21.02.2019 as per Hindu Rites and Customs. It is alleged that an incident
occurred during the period from 22.02.2019 to 12.08.2022. Based on these
allegations, an FIR was lodged on 26.11.2022, wherein it is claimed that the
petitioners subjected the complainant (Respondent No. 2) to physical and
mental harassment in connection with demands for dowry.
14. When the facts of the case in hand are tested on anvil of the aforesaid
facts, it is apparent that no specific allegation has been made against the
petitioners No.2 to 5. It appears that the impugned FIR on which criminal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24390
11 MCRC-10932-2023
proceedings have been maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for
wrecking vengeance on the family members and with a view to spite them
due to private and personal grudge best known to the wife. It clearly appears
that filing of criminal complaint is a pressure tactic, having been employed
by the complainant against the family members of the petitioner
No.1/husband. It appears that the impugned FIR is nothing, but is a
premeditation with an ulterior motive of respondent No.2 to pressurize her
husband and his family members and to drag them in a criminal proceedings
for their prosecution. Under these circumstances, prima facie, no case is
made out against commission of alleged offence against petitioners No.2 to
15. In the result, the petition filed on behalf of petitioners No.2 to 5 namely
Premwati Gautam, Indu Gautam, Manju Mishra and Ankit Gautam is
allowed and the impugned FIR vide Crime No.198/2022 registered at Mahila
Thana Police Station Rewa District - Rewa for offences punishable under
Sections 498-A, 506, 34 of the IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act is hereby quashed. The trial against the petitioner No.1/
husband will continue.
16. With the aforesaid directions, the present petition is allowed in part
with no order to costs.
(HIMANSHU JOSHI)
JUDGE
pn
