[Cites 15, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vineet Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24040
1 MCRC-29925-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIMANSHU JOSHI
ON THE 23rd OF MARCH, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 29925 of 2024
VINEET SINGH AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Surendra Singh - Senior Advocate with Shri Praveen Kumar
Mishra - Advocate for petitioners.
Shri Manoj Kushwaha - Panel Lawyer for the State.
Shri Manish Datt - Senior Advocate with Shri Rakesh Dwivedi -
Advocate for respondent No.2.
ORDER
After arguing at length, learned Senior Advocate prays for withdrawal
of present petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the
petitioner No.1 Vineet Singh.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, the present petition filed on behalf of the p etitioner No.1
Vineet Singh is hereby dismissed as withdrawn.
The petitioners No.2, 3 and 4 have filed this petition under Section
482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR registered in Crime No.8/2024 dated
24.02.2024 at Police Station Sidhi Mahila Police Station District Sidhi (M.P)
and also consequential proceeding thereto for an offences punishable under
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24040
2 MCRC-29925-2024
Sections 498-A, 323/34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act.
2. Facts of the case in short are that the petitioner No.1 is the husband of
respondent No.2 (complainant), while petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the father-
in-law and mother-in-law and petitioner No.4 is the sister-in-law of the
complainant. The marriage between the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2
was solemnized on 08.12.2021 in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals. It
is alleged by the complainant that all the petitioners demanded additional
dowry and subjected her to cruelty. Due to the alleged harassment, the
complainant started residing with her parental family from 25.09.2022
onwards. Subsequently, she lodged a complaint against the petitioners on
24.02.2024. On the very same day, a criminal case was registered against the
present petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 323
read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Sections 3 and 4 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners No.2, 3 and 4
have been falsely implicated in this matter. It is admitted that the marriage of
petitioner No.1 was solemnized with respondent No.2 on 08.12.2021;
however, the allegations levelled against the petitioners No.2, 3 and 4
regarding demand of dowry and subjecting the respondent No.2 to cruelty
are false, baseless, and devoid of any merit. It is further submitted that the
respondent No.2 herself subjected the petitioners to cruelty and was not
willing to reside with petitioner No.1. On 23.09.2022, she voluntarily left the
matrimonial home. The petitioners duly reported her conduct before the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24040
3 MCRC-29925-2024
competent authority; however, she did not return thereafter. From the date of
separation, i.e. on 23.09.2022, no complaint regarding cruelty or demand of
dowry was made by the respondent/wife. It is only after petitioner No.1
instituted proceedings for dissolution of marriage under Section 13 of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on 30.01.2023 that the respondent No.2 lodged a
false and belated complaint alleging cruelty and demand of dowry on
24.02.2024 with an ulterior motive to harass the petitioners No.2, 3 and
4. There is no cogent or reliable material available on record to connect the
said petitioners with the alleged offence; therefore, the registration of the
offence against the said petitioners amounts to an abuse of the process of
law. Upon consideration of the allegations, statements of witnesses, and
other material collected during investigation and reflected in the charge-
sheet, it is evident that none of the essential ingredients of the offences under
Sections 498-A & 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code as well
as Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, are made out against
the petitioners No.2 to 4. 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 Senior 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 24.02.2024 at Mahila Police Station Sidhi, District
Sidhi clearly narrating that after her marriage with petitioner No.1 on
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24040
4 MCRC-29925-2024
08.12.2021, she was subjected to continuous harassment, physical and mental
cruelty and dowry demands by her husband and in-laws. It is further
submitted that the petition for divorce filed by petitioner No.1 under Section
13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been dismissed by the learned
Principal Judge, Family Court, Sidhi vide judgment dated 21.10.2024. In the
said judgment, it has been held that no cruelty was caused by respondent
No.2; rather, it was observed that petitioner No.1 himself had deserted
respondent No.2 for the preceding two years. It is further argued that
the respondent No.2 received notice of the divorce petition filed by petitioner
No.1 on 01.03.2023. However, even prior to the receipt of the said notice,
the respondent No.2 had already initiated proceedings against the applicants
alleging cruelty and desertion before the police authorities and the competent
court of law, seeking redressal of her grievances. The petitioners No.2 to 4
have suppressed and misrepresented material facts with an intent to mislead
this Hon'ble Court; therefore, the present petition deserves to be dismissed
with exemplary costs.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.
6. Perusal of the record of the case reveals that the marriage between the
petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 was solemnized on 08.12.2021. The FIR
reveals that the behaviour of the petitioner - husband and their family
members were cruel and aggressive. The respondent No.2 was subjected to
physically and mentally by suing filthy language. Therefore, her life
measurable and left the matrimonial home. It is further submitted that the
FIR not only implicates the petitioner No.1/husband but also names other
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24040
5 MCRC-29925-2024
family members.
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:24040
6 MCRC-29925-2024
(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:24040
7 MCRC-29925-2024
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
proper deliberations. We come across a large number of
such complaints which are not even bona fide and are
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24040
8 MCRC-29925-2024
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.
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."
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24040
9 MCRC-29925-2024
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
08.12.2021 as per Hindu Rites and Customs.
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 4. It appears that the impugned FIR on which criminal
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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24040
10 MCRC-29925-2024
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 4 namely
Surendra Singh, Sangita Singh and Shivani Singh is allowed and the
impugned FIR vide Crime No.08/2024 registered at Mahila Police Station
Sidhi District - Sidhi for offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 323
read with Section 34 of 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
