Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sohan Lal Sargaiyan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5287
1 MCRC-25596-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA
ON THE 9 th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 25596 of 2025
SOHAN LAL SARGAIYAN AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Atul Gupta - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Atul Kumar Sharma- PP for the State.
None for respondent No.2, though served.
ORDER
1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
(now corresponding to Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023) has been filed by the petitioners seeking quashment of FIR
bearing Crime No. 164/2025 registered at Police Station Joura for offences
punishable under Sections 85, 296, 351(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 and the consequential charge-sheet filed pursuant thereto.
2. As per the prosecution case, the marriage of complainant Smt. Kiran
was solemnized with co-accused Govind Narayan Sargaiyan on 03.12.2011.
It is alleged that at the time of marriage, sufficient dowry and gifts were
given beyond the financial capacity of the complainant’s father. The
complainant resided with her husband at Gwalior. According to her, for
about two years the matrimonial life remained cordial. Thereafter, it is
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 2/13/2026
12:20:42 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5287
2 MCRC-25596-2025
alleged that the husband along with the present petitioners started demanding
an additional amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- from her parental family and
subjected her to cruelty and harassment on account of non-fulfilment of the
said demand. On 29.04.2025, the complainant lodged the impugned FIR at
Police Station Joura. After investigation, the police have filed charge-sheet
against the accused persons including the present petitioners. It is also not in
dispute that prior to lodging of the FIR, the husband Govind had filed a
petition seeking divorce before the Family Court, Gwalior on 03.03.2025.
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, the instant petition has been preferred.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations are
vague and omnibus in nature without specific dates or overt acts attributed to
the petitioners. The petitioners are residing separately in a different city and
have been falsely implicated. The FIR has been lodged as a counterblast to
the divorce petition filed by the husband. There is a growing tendency to
implicate all relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes.
Learned counsel for the petitioner while placing reliance on the
following judgements, contended as follows:-
4. In Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana, 2024 SCC
OnLine SC 3682, the Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings under
Section 498A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It
noted that the allegations lacked specific instances of cruelty or dowry
demands, and merely naming family members without concrete evidence
amounts to abuse of legal process. The Court said that “a mere reference to
the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 2/13/2026
12:20:42 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5287
3 MCRC-25596-2025
dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement
should be nipped in the bud”. The Court emphasised that such misuse of
Section 498A to harass the husband and his family must be curbed, and held
that the High Court erred in not quashing the FIR under Section 482 of the
CrPC. The Court further said that the “inclusion of Section 498-A of the IPC
by way of an amendment was intended to curb cruelty inflicted on a woman
by her husband and his family, ensuring swift intervention by the State.
However, in recent years, as there have been a notable rise in matrimonial
disputes across the country, accompanied by growing discord and tension
within the institution of marriage, consequently, there has been a growing
tendency to misuse provisions like Section 498-A of the IPC as a tool for
unleashing personal vendetta against the husband and his family by a wife.
5. In Archin Gupta v. State of Haryana (2025) 3 SCC 756 , the
Supreme Court held that Section 498A IPC should not be applied
mechanically. The Court observed that minor marital issues were often
exaggerated by the wife’s family which lead to misuse of police machinery to
harass the husband. The Court stated that, “many times, the parents including
the close relatives of the wife make a mountain out of a mole. Instead of
salvaging the situation and making all possible endeavours to save the
marriage, their action either due to ignorance or on account of sheer hatred
towards the husband and his family members, brings about complete
destruction of marriage on trivial issues. The first thing that comes in the
mind of the wife, her parents and her relatives is the Police, as if the Police is
the panacea of all evil”. The Court further emphasised that such actions
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 2/13/2026
12:20:42 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5287
4 MCRC-25596-2025
amounted to the abuse of the legal process and that the High Court should
have quashed the proceedings under Section 482 of the CrPC. The Court also
directed the legislature to amend the provisions to address the pragmatic
realities.
6. In the case of Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar 2022 SCC
OnLine SC 162, the Court held that husband’s relatives cannot be forced to
undergo trial in absence of specific allegations of dowry demand. It was
further that “a criminal trial leading to an eventual acquittal also inflicts
severe scars upon the accused, and such an exercise must therefore be
discouraged.”.
7. In Sushila v. State of U.P. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 804, the Supreme
Court quashed the proceedings against the appellants and observed that the
complaint was lodged under Section 498A of the IPC after three years of an
ex parte divorce, based on a single incident occurring post-divorce, lacked
specific, credible allegations against the appellants relatives and focused
mainly on the husband’s conduct. In the absence of any specific allegations
against the relatives of husband, the Court held that proceeding against them
would amount to a vexatious trial.
8. While quashing criminal proceedings against the accused in
Geddam Jhansi v. State of Telangana 2025 SCC OnLine SC 263 , the
Supreme Court remarked, “In the context of matrimonial disputes, emotions
run high, and as such in the complaints filed alleging harassment or domestic
violence, there may be a tendency to implicate other members of the family
who do not come to the rescue of the complainant or remain mute spectators
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 2/13/2026
12:20:42 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5287
5 MCRC-25596-2025
to any alleged incident of harassment, which in our view cannot by itself
constitute a criminal act without there being specific acts attributed to them.
Further, when tempers run high and relationships turn bitter, there is also a
propensity to exaggerate the allegations, which does not necessarily mean
that such domestic disputes should be given the colour of criminality.” Thus,
implicating all such relatives without making specific allegations and
attributing offending acts to them and proceeding against them without
prima facie evidence that they were complicit and had actively collaborated
with the perpetrators of domestic violence, would amount to abuse of the
process of law. The Court emphasised that mere omnibus allegations against
multiple relatives, including five sisters-in-law and even a tailor, without
substantiation, cannot justify prosecution. The Court that though being a
police officer does not exclude the possibility of victimization it was
unfortunate that an officer of the State had initiated criminal machinery in
such a manner.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent/State for the State has opposed
the petition and submits that the petitioners are specifically named in the
FIR. There are clear allegations of dowry demand and harassment. At this
stage, the defence raised by the petitioners cannot be adjudicated under
Section 482 Cr.P.C.
10. Heard counsel for the rival parties and perused the entire record.
11. The law relating to exercise of inherent powers is well settled. In
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal , 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 ,, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court enumerated illustrative categories where quashing may be
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 2/13/2026
12:20:42 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5287
6 MCRC-25596-2025
permissible, including cases where the allegations do not disclose
commission of any offence or are manifestly attended with mala fides.
However, in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra ,
(2021) 19 SCC 401, it has been categorically held that the High Court, while
exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., should not conduct a mini
trial or evaluate the sufficiency of evidence. If the allegations prima facie
disclose commission of cognizable offence, the proceedings should not be
quashed.
12. Similarly, in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460 ,
the Apex Court held that the Court should refrain from quashing proceedings
where the allegations raise triable issues. In Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC
India Ltd., (2006) 6 SCC 736, it has been held that even if there is a civil
dispute between the parties, the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed, if
the allegations disclose criminal offence.
13. In the present case in hand, upon perusal of the FIR and the
charge-sheet material, this Court finds that the complainant has alleged
demand of Rs. 20,00,000/- and harassment by the husband and the present
petitioners. At this stage, it cannot be said that there are absolutely no
allegations against the petitioners. Whether such allegations are exaggerated
or ultimately unsubstantiated is a matter of evidence.
14. The petitioners are specifically named in the FIR. Their alleged
role forms part of the prosecution narrative. This is not a case where their
names have surfaced incidentally during investigation without foundational
allegations. After due investigation, the investigating agency has filed
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 2/13/2026
12:20:42 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5287
7 MCRC-25596-2025
charge-sheet. The Court cannot substitute its own view over the investigative
satisfaction at this preliminary stage.
15. The plea that the petitioners are residing separately is a matter of
defence. In Taramani Parakh v. State of M.P. , (2015) 11 SCC 260 , it has
been held that such defence cannot be conclusively adjudicated in
proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. However, the offence as alleged is
not an offence of a particular time, but it is an offence running with time.
16. The fact that the husband filed divorce proceedings prior to
registration of FIR may raise suspicion; however, suspicion cannot substitute
adjudication. In Prashant Bharti v. State (NCT of Delhi) , (2013) 9 SCC 293,
it has been held that only where unimpeachable material of sterling quality
completely demolishes the prosecution case, interference is justified. No such
material has been placed on record in this regard
17. The decisions relied upon by the petitioners such as Kahkashan
Kausar and Dara Lakshmi Narayana (supra) are distinguishable on facts. In
those cases, the allegations were completely vague and devoid of particulars.
In the present case, the FIR contains allegations of demand of specific
amount and harassment attributable to the accused persons. Whether such
allegations are truthful is a matter for trial.
18. It is also pertinent to note that the offence of cruelty under Section
498-A IPC (now reflected in Section 85 of BNS) has been consistently held
to be a continuing offence so long as the acts of cruelty and harassment
persist. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arun Vyas v. Anita Vyas , (1999) 4
SCC 690, observed that cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A IPC is a
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 2/13/2026
12:20:42 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5287
8 MCRC-25596-2025
continuing offence and limitation would commence from the last act of
cruelty. Similarly, in Suvetha v. State , (2009) 6 SCC 757 , it was reiterated
that matrimonial cruelty may consist of a series of acts spread over a period
of time. Therefore, merely because the marriage was solemnized in the year
2011 or that certain acts are stated to have occurred earlier, the complaint
cannot be discarded at the threshold on the ground of delay, if the allegations
indicate continued harassment culminating prior to the lodging of FIR.
19. This is also pertinent to note that the petitioners have produced
certain documents as Annexure P/3, Annexure P/4, certain
representations/applications preferred before the concerned competent police
authorities (from page No.39 to page 47). The aforesaid documents are
sufficient to show that there was some dispute between the parties.
Therefore, the production of aforesaid documents is also creating an
assumption that allegations may not be squarely/entirely false. However, this
court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. cannot perform marshalling of the
evidence and cannot conduct mini trial.
20. The contention that the petitioners were residing separately cannot,
by itself, be a ground for quashing proceedings. The Supreme Court in K.
Subba Rao v. State of Telangana, (2018) 14 SCC 452 , held that:
“Physical absence from the matrimonial home does not ipso
facto exonerate a relative from the offence of cruelty if allegations
of instigation or active participation exist.”
21. Similarly, in U. Suvetha v. State , (2009) 6 SCC 757 , it was held
that the role of relatives must be examined during trial when allegations
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 2/13/2026
12:20:42 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5287
9 MCRC-25596-2025
disclose participation.
22. A bare reading of the FIR shows that the petitioners are
specifically named and attributed with acts of cruelty, demand of scooty,
abuse and instigation. Whether these allegations are ultimately proved or not
is a matter of evidence.
23. In Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander , (2012) 9 SCC 460, the
Supreme Court held:
“If the allegations prima facie constitute an offence, the Court should
not quash the proceedings merely because the defence claims them to be
false.”
24. The offence under Section 498-A IPC is a continuing offence. The
Supreme Court in Vanka Radhamanohari v. Vanka Venkata Reddy , (1993) 3
SCC 4, held that cruelty to a married woman is a continuing offence and
limitation does not bar prosecution if cruelty continues.
25. In the instant matter, no interference is warranted in the present
facts and circumstances of the case as the investigation is over. Therefore,
the validity of the charges alleged against the petitioners becomes a matter of
trial and must be decided then and there only.
26. The FIR discloses prima facie ingredients of the offence under
Section 498-A IPC against the petitioners. The petitioners are named
accused, and allegations are not purely vague or omnibus. Grounds raised
regarding separate residence, falsity of allegations and inconvenience are
matters of trial .
27. Accordingly, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. It is
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 2/13/2026
12:20:42 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5287
10 MCRC-25596-2025
clarified that the observations made herein are only for the purpose of
deciding this petition and shall not influence the trial Court on merits.
28. No order as to costs.
(RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA )
JUDGE
Vishal
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 2/13/2026
12:20:42 PM