Madhya Pradesh High Court
Virendra Singh Ahirwar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 February, 2026
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6379
1 MCRC-33998-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 18th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 33998 of 2023
VIRENDRA SINGH AHIRWAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sanjay Kumar Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Mohit Shivhare - Public Prosecutor for the State.
ORDER
By invoking the inherent powers of this Hon’ble Court, the present
petition is being preferred by the petitioners under Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), seeking quashment of
F.I.R. bearing Crime No. 159 of 2021 registered at Police Station Mahila
Thana, Padav, District Gwalior for the offences punishable under Sections
498-A, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Sections 3 and 4
of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, along with all consequential criminal
proceedings arising therefrom, including the proceedings of R.C.T. No. 5206
of 2021 presently pending before the Court of learned JMFC, Gwalior.
As per prosecuton story, the marriage of the complainant was
solemnized on 13.11.2013 with Sunil Singh Ahirwar, S/o Shri Virendra
Singh Ahirwar (present petitioner), resident of Balaji Stone Factory, Shanti
Nagar, District Shivpuri (M.P.), according to Hindu rites and customs. It was
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 2/19/2026
11:11:13 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6379
2 MCRC-33998-2023
alleged that at the time of marriage, her parents provided dowry articles as
per their financial capacity, including household articles, cash amount of
Rs.3,00,000/-, and Rs.80,000/- in cash for purchase of a motorcycle, along
with various items such as LED TV, cooler, refrigerator, almirah, sewing
machine, double bed, sofa set, complete kitchen articles, and gold and silver
ornaments. The total expenditure of the marriage is alleged to be
approximately ₹8,00,000/-. It was further alleged that after the marriage, the
complainant was treated properly for about two years. In the year 2015, a
male child namely Pushkar was born out of the wedlock. Thereafter the
petitioner and other family members started demanding an additional dowry
amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and began subjecting the complainant to physical
and mental cruelty. It was further alleged that they used to harass and taunt
her on trivial issues and pressurize her to bring the said amount from her
parental home. It was further alleged that on 08.06.2021, due to non-
fulfillment of the alleged demand of Rs.5,00,000/-, the petitioner and other
family members abused the complainant in filthy language and assaulted her.
She allegedly informed her father, whereupon her brother came to her
matrimonial home and objected to the harassment. It was alleged that the
petitioner and other family members misbehaved with him as well and drove
the complainant out of the matrimonial home along with her minor child.
The prosecution further alleged that despite several attempts for amicable
settlement, the dispute could not be resolved. It was also alleged that the
petitioner and other family members came to the complainant’s parental
home at Panchsheel Nagar, Gwalior and reiterated the demand of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 2/19/2026
11:11:13 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6379
3 MCRC-33998-2023
Rs.5,00,000/- and, upon refusal, extended threats to kill her if she was sent
back without fulfilling the demand.
On the basis of the said complaint dated 01.07.2021, the FIR bearing
Crime No. 159 of 2021 has been registered at Police Station Mahila Thana,
Padav, District Gwalior for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A,
506, 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and
after investigation, charge-sheet has been filed, and the matter is presently
pending as RCT No. 5206 of 2021 before the learned JMFC, Gwalior.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the impugned FIR and all
consequential criminal proceedings, insofar as they relate to the present
petitioner, are manifestly arbitrary, legally unsustainable and amount to a
gross abuse of the process of law, thus warranting interference by this Court
in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure.
It is further submitted that petitioner is the father-in-law of the
complainant and is residing at District Shivpuri and he has been falsely
implicated solely on account of his relationship with the husband of the
complainant. The allegations contained in the FIR, even if taken at their face
value, are general, omnibus and sweeping in nature. No specific overt act,
date, time or particular incident has been attributed to the present petitioner.
The complaint merely makes a bald and mechanical allegation that both the
husband and father-in-law demanded an additional sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and
subjected the complainant to harassment. Such vague assertions, without
material particulars, do not satisfy the essential ingredients of Section 498-A
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 2/19/2026
11:11:13 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6379
4 MCRC-33998-2023
of the IPC.
It is further submitted that the marriage between the complainant and
son of the present petitioner was solemnized in the year 2013 and admittedly,
for about two years, the complainant was treated properly. A male child was
born out of the wedlock in the year 2015. The FIR, however, came to be
lodged only in the year 2021, after nearly eight years of marriage. The
unexplained and inordinate delay in setting the criminal law in motion
clearly indicates that the allegations are an afterthought, arising out of
matrimonial discord between the spouses, and have been levelled with a
view to exert pressure upon the husband and his family members.
It is further submitted that there is no specific allegation of any willful
conduct on the part of the present petitioner of such a nature as is likely to
drive the complainant to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger
to life, limb or health, as contemplated under Section 498-A IPC. There is
also no specific instance demonstrating any direct and proximate act of
dowry demand by the petitioner. The allegations are stereotyped and drafted
in a routine manner so as to rope in all family members, which has
unfortunately become a common feature in matrimonial disputes.
So far as the offence under Section 506 IPC is concerned, the
allegations regarding criminal intimidation are equally vague and devoid of
particulars, as there is no mention of the exact words used, the surrounding
circumstances, or any material indicating a real and imminent threat. In the
absence of specific and credible allegations, the ingredients of Section 506
IPC are not made out against the present petitioner.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 2/19/2026
11:11:13 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6379
5 MCRC-33998-2023
It is further submitted that that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
consistently cautioned against the tendency to implicate all relatives of the
husband in matrimonial disputes without specific allegations. In Neelu
Chopra and Another v. Bharti, (2009) 10 SCC 104, the Hon’ble Apex Court
held that mere casual reference to family members without specific
allegations would not justify taking cognizance against them. Similarly, in
Preeti Gupta and Another v. State of Jharkhand and Another, (2010) 7 SCC
667, the Court observed that exaggerated versions of incidents are often
reflected in complaints under Section 498-A IPC and that such allegations
require careful scrutiny. Further, in Geeta Mehrotra and Another v. State of
U.P. and Another, (2012) 10 SCC 741, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that
in the absence of specific allegations against relatives, continuation of
criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law. In
Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Another, (2014) 8 SCC 273, the Court
recognized the misuse of Section 498-A IPC and emphasized the need for
cautious and judicious application of the provision.
Reliance is also placed upon Rajesh Sharma and Others v. State of
U.P. and Another, (2018) 10 SCC 472, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court
acknowledged the misuse of Section 498-A IPC and issued guidelines to
prevent abuse of the criminal justice system. In G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad
and Others, (2000) 3 SCC 693, the Apex Court observed that there is a
growing tendency to involve all relations of the husband in matrimonial
disputes and that courts must be vigilant in dealing with such matters. In K.
Subba Rao v. State of Telangana, (2018) 14 SCC 452, the Hon’ble Supreme
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 2/19/2026
11:11:13 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6379
6 MCRC-33998-2023
Court reiterated that in the absence of specific allegations constituting
cruelty, continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process of
law.
In light of the settled legal position and applying the ratio of the
aforesaid judgments to the facts of the present case, it is evident that the
allegations against petitioner are wholly omnibus, lacking in material
particulars and do not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence.
Even if the entire prosecution case is accepted as true, no prima facie case is
made out against the present petitioner. Permitting the proceedings to
continue would result in undue harassment and miscarriage of justice. It is,
therefore, prayed that the FIR bearing Crime No. 159 of 2021 and all
consequential proceedings arising therefrom, insofar as they relate to
petitioner – Virendra Singh Ahirwar, be quashed.
Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, on the other hand,
has opposed the petition and submitted that the impugned FIR discloses the
commission of cognizable offences under Sections 498-A, 506, 34 of the IPC
and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It is contended that the
allegations made in the complaint clearly indicate persistent demand of
additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- and consequent physical and mental
harassment of the complainant. The statement of the complainant, recorded
during investigation, supports the allegations made in the FIR, and after due
investigation, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court. It is
further submitted that at this stage, while exercising jurisdiction under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this Court is not required to
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 2/19/2026
11:11:13 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6379
7 MCRC-33998-2023
conduct a meticulous appreciation of evidence or adjudicate upon the
truthfulness of the allegations.
It is further submitted that the inherent powers under Section 482
Cr.P.C. are to be exercised sparingly and with great caution, and only in
cases where no prima facie offence is made out. In the present case, specific
allegations of dowry demand and threats have been levelled against the
petitioner, and whether such allegations are ultimately proved or not is a
matter of trial.
Shri H.K. Shukla, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2,
submits that despite due communication, he has not received any instructions
from respondent No. 2 and, therefore, pleads no instructions on her behalf.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the
FIR, charge-sheet and the material available on record, this Court finds that
the allegations levelled against petitioner – Virendra Singh Ahirwar are
wholly omnibus and general in nature, as no specific overt act, date, time or
distinct instance of cruelty or dowry demand has been attributed to him. The
allegations are bald and sweeping, lacking material particulars necessary to
constitute the essential ingredients of the offences under Sections 498-A and
506 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
It is an admitted position that the marriage was solemnized in the year
2013 and the FIR has been lodged in the year 2021 after a considerable lapse
of time. Except for general assertions, there is no specific and proximate
allegation demonstrating active involvement of petitioner No. 2 in the
alleged commission of offences. Even if the entire prosecution story is taken
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 2/19/2026
11:11:13 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6379
8 MCRC-33998-2023
at its face value, no prima facie case is made out against the present
petitioner.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Neelu Chopra and Another v. Bharti,
(supra) has held that mere casual reference to family members without
specific allegations would not justify taking cognizance against them. In
Preeti Gupta and Another v. State of Jharkhand ( supra), the Apex Court
expressed concern over the misuse of Section 498-A IPC and emphasized
careful scrutiny of allegations. Similarly, in Geeta Mehrotra and Another v.
State of U.P. ( supra), it has been held that in the absence of specific
allegations against relatives, continuation of criminal proceedings would
amount to abuse of process of law. In Rajesh Sharma and Others v. State of
U.P. ( supra), guidelines were laid down to prevent abuse of matrimonial
litigation. Further, in G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad ( supra), the Court observed
that there is a growing tendency to implicate all relatives of the husband in
matrimonial disputes without specific allegations. In K. Subba Rao v. State
of Telangana, ( supra), it was reiterated that absence of specific allegations
constituting cruelty would justify quashment of proceedings.
Applying the ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgments to the facts of
the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that continuation of
criminal proceedings against petitioner would amount to abuse of the process
of Court. The inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are meant to secure
the ends of justice and to prevent such abuse.
Accordingly, the petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure is allowed. The FIR bearing Crime No. 159 of 2021 registered at
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 2/19/2026
11:11:13 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6379
9 MCRC-33998-2023
Police Station Mahila Thana, Padav, District Gwalior, and all consequential
proceedings arising therefrom, including RCT No. 5206 of 2021 pending
before the Court of JMFC, Gwalior, are hereby quashed in so far as they
relate to petitioner – Virendra Singh Ahirwar.
It is clarified that the proceedings against the remaining accused
persons shall continue in accordance with law.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
pwn*
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 2/19/2026
11:11:13 AM
