Madhya Pradesh High Court
Astha Pandey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:18379
1 MCRC-23552-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIMANSHU JOSHI
ON THE 24th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 23552 of 2024
ASTHA PANDEY
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ankit Saxena - Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Manisha Singh - PL for the respondent No.1/State.
Shri Pranay Shukla - counsel for the respondent No.2.
ORDER
The petitioner has invoked the provisions of section 482 of the
Criminal Procedure Code for quashment of FIR registered at Crime
No.1/2024 in P.S. Mahila Thana, District Satna for the offences punishable
under section 498-A, 506, 294 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3
& 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and also all consequential proceedings
arising out of R.C.T. No. 215 of 2024 pending before the trial court.
2. The facts of the case reveals that the marriage of the respondent
no. 2 was solemnized with the brother of the petitioner on 14/05/2022
following Hindu rituals. The present petitioner is the sister-in-law of the
respondent no. 2. There were some mutual differences between parties which
resulted into registration of FIR dated 02/01/2024 for the offences under
section 498-A, 506, 294 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 & 4 of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JASLEEN SINGH
SALUJA
Signing time: 13-03-2026
17:41:56
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:18379
2 MCRC-23552-2024
the Dowry Prohibition Act. The present petition is for quashment of FIR and
all consequential proceedings arisen out of the FIR qua the present petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that
the petitioner is the sister-in-law of the respondent no. 2. As per the
contention of the petitioner, she is living separately and resident of Jaitpur,
teaching in Eklavya Model Residential School Jaitpur, District Shadol. It has
also been argued that no specific allegations were made in the FIR for
commission of any crulety committed by the petitioner. The learned counsel
has also relied on various judgments of the Courts of law.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent has supported
registration of FIR and also prays for continuation of the trial against the
petitioner. It has been submitted that at the time of marriage, in the year
2022, the petitioner was staying along with the family. It is also argued that
cruelty committed by woman against woman is grievous offence. The
learned counsel has relied upon the landmark judgment of Bhajanlal vs. state
of Hariyana, (1992) Supp(1) 335] to bolster his submissions.
5. Heard the parties at length and with the assistance of the learned
counsels for the parties, perused the record of the case and the judgments
cited.
6. The facts of the case reveals that the marriage was solemnized on
14/05/2022 and no child has born out of the wedlock. The record of the case
also reveals that after the respondent no. 2 has left the matrimonial house, the
husband of the respondent no. 2 had preferred divorce petitioner on
15/06/2023 and till that time no FIR was filed by the respondent no. 2. Only
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JASLEEN SINGH
SALUJA
Signing time: 13-03-2026
17:41:56
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:18379
3 MCRC-23552-2024
on 18/07/2023 (Annexure A/5) a detailed complaint was filed by the
respondent no. 2 but the said complaint does not disclose any act done by the
petitioner. Subsequently statements were also recorded on 08/11/2023
(Annexure A/7) which is also silent as far as the act of present petitioner is
concerned. This gives a clear indication that the FIR has been filed, qua the
present petitioner, only levelling omnibus allegations.
7. In the case of State of Haryana v. 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 channelized and
inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive
list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be
exercised.
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.
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) CrPC.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JASLEEN SINGH
SALUJA
Signing time: 13-03-2026
17:41:56
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:18379
4 MCRC-23552-2024
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.
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 Others, 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 Supreme Court has dealt with the growing tendency in
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JASLEEN SINGH
SALUJA
Signing time: 13-03-2026
17:41:56
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:18379
5 MCRC-23552-2024
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:-
9. 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. Previously, in 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 bonaSignature Not Verified
Signed by: JASLEEN SINGH
SALUJA
Signing time: 13-03-2026
17:41:56
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:183796 MCRC-23552-2024
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 tranquillity 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 visualised 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.”
12. In Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P. & Anr (2012) 10 SCC 741 it
was observed:-
“21. It would be relevant at this stage to take note of an apt
observation of this Court recorded in G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. PrasadSignature Not Verified
Signed by: JASLEEN SINGH
SALUJA
Signing time: 13-03-2026
17:41:56
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:183797 MCRC-23552-2024
(2000) 3 SCC 693 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 733 wherein also in a
matrimonial dispute, this Court had held that the High Court
should have quashed the complaint arising out of a matrimonial
dispute wherein all family members had been roped into the
matrimonial litigation which was quashed and set aside. Their
Lordships observed therein with which we entirely agree that :
“there has been an outburst of matrimonial dispute in recent times.
Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to
enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully.
But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often
assume serious proportions resulting in commission of heinous
crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the
result hat those who could have counselled and brought about
rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as
accused in the criminal case. There are many other reasons which
need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial
litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and
terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of
fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to
conclude and in that process the parties lose their “young” days in
chasing their cases in different courts.” The view taken by the
Judges in this matter was that the courts would not encourage such
disputes.”
13. 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.
14. 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
02.05.2019 as per Hindu Rites and Customs. After their marriage, both
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JASLEEN SINGH
SALUJA
Signing time: 13-03-2026
17:41:56
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:18379
8 MCRC-23552-2024
parties settled their life but due to certain issues the complaint had left the
house along with belongings and since then, she is living in her parental
home at her own will and volition. Petitioner No.1- husband filed a written
complaint with the authority and a petition for restitution of conjugal rights
under Section 9 of HM Act against his wife/respondent No.2 which was kept
pending before the Court of law.
15. When the facts of the case in hand are tested on anvil of the
aforesaid facts, it is apparent that as a counter-blast, respondent No.2 lodged
an FIR with allegation of harassment in regard to demand of dowry, so also
commission of ” marpeet” with her. No specific allegation has been made
against the petitioner sister-in-law. It appears that after lapse of around more
than a year of marriage, the complainant has lodged the impugned FIR on
which, criminal proceeding have been maliciously instituted with an ulterior
motive for wrecking vengeance on the petitioner 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, qua the present
petitioner. It appears that the impugned FIR is nothing, but is a
premeditation with an ulterior motive of respondent No.2 to pressurize and
to drag in criminal proceedings for their prosecution. Under these
circumstances, prima facie, no case is made out against commission of
alleged offence against petitioner sister-in-law.
16. In the result, the petition filed on behalf of present petitioner
sister-in-law under Section 482 CrPC is allowed and the impugned FIR vide
Crime No. 001/2024 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, District
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JASLEEN SINGH
SALUJA
Signing time: 13-03-2026
17:41:56
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:18379
9 MCRC-23552-2024
Satna for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, , 294, 506, 34 of IPC
and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act as well as all consequential
proceedings arising out of said crime, in RCT No 215/2024 pending before
the JMFC, Satna, (MP) are hereby quashed in respect to petitioner.
17. Petition is allowed with no order to costs.
(HIMANSHU JOSHI)
JUDGE
Jasleen
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JASLEEN SINGH
SALUJA
Signing time: 13-03-2026
17:41:56