Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Sunita Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:23830
1 MCRC-18669-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIMANSHU JOSHI
ON THE 12th OF MARCH, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 18669 of 2025
SMT. SUNITA YADAV AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ashish Kumar Kurmi - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Ajeet Rawat - Government Advocate for the State.
ORDER
The petitioners have been filed invoking the Provisions of Section
528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 taking exception to the
registration of FIR at Crime No.852 of 2022 by Police Station Banda,
District Sagar under Section 498-A, 406, 506 read with Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code & Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against
the petitioners.
2. Facts of the case in short are that on 12.05.2020, the marriage between
petitioner No.2 and the complainant was solemnized in accordance with
Hindu Rites and Rituals. The petitioner No.1 is the mother-in-law of the
complainant. Subsequently, on 26.09.2022, the complainant submitted a
written complaint at Police Station Banda, District Sagar alleging that the
petitioners subjected her for harassment and physical assault after the
marriage. On the basis of the said complaint, the Police registered an
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PANKAJ NAGLE
Signing time: 24-03-2026
11:37:14
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:23830
2 MCRC-18669-2025
offences under Sections 498-A, 406, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code along
with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are
falsely implicated in the matter. The marriage between the petitioner No.2
and respondent No.2 was solemnized on 12/05/2020. The respondent No.2
has stayed in the Matrimonial house for only 12 days. The FIR reveals that
the behaviour of the petitioners was cruel as against the respondent No.2 and
the petitioners used to demand cash amount, gold rings and motor cycle in
dowry. On the other hand, the petitioners counsel has argued that the
respondent No.2 does not wish to stay in the family as he was in relation
with some other persons. All the allegations are far from the truth and
baseless. It is also admitted that the marriage took place on 12/05/26 and the
respondent No.2 stayed for only 12 days and left for her matrimonial house.
The FIR was registered only on 26/09/2022 after receiving the notice of
divorce petition filed by the petitioner no.2. It is also argued by the counsel
for the petitioners that vide order dated 27/02/2025, the learned Court has
granted divorce to the petitioner no.1 after adjucating the case on merits.
Lastly, it is argued that the respondent no.2 left the house of the petitioners
only after 12 days, but she has never made any complaint to any authority. A
prayer has been made to allow the present petition.
4. Learned Government Advocate for the State has supported the
registration of FIR on the ground that the FIR cannot be quashed without
leading evidence. He has vehemently opposed the grounds raised in the
petition and prayed for dismissal of the petition. It is argued that a close
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PANKAJ NAGLE
Signing time: 24-03-2026
11:37:14
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:23830
3 MCRC-18669-2025
scrutiny of the FIR and 161 statements reveals the commission of offence
and demand of dowery by the petitioners. No case for quashment is made
out.
5. The record of the case reveals that the date of marriage is 12/05/2020
and FIR was lodged on 26/09/2022. The petitioner no.2 has filed a divorce
petition on 02/09/2022. During her cross examination in the divorce petition,
the respondent No.2 has admitted that she has filled the FIR after receiving
the notice of the divorce petition. This Court feels that the filing of the FIR is
clearly a counter blast to the divorce petition filed by the petitioner No.2.
During this ceasefires period between the respondent no.2 left the
matrimonial house and receiving the divorce notice, for a very long period,
no report/complaint/FIR has been filed to any authority.
6. Another aspect which this Court cannot ignore is the material that has
come on record, as reflected in the order of the learned Additional District
Court Banda, District Sagar regarding the call detail records of respondent
No.2 with certain other persons. The trial Court itself has observed that such
conduct of a married woman is not appropriate. Although the respondent
No.2 has denied the voice attributed to her, the findings recorded by the
Court are based on the documents produced during trial, which have been
duly subjected to examination and cross-examination..
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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PANKAJ NAGLE
Signing time: 24-03-2026
11:37:14
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:238304 MCRC-18669-2025
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) CrPC.
(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 theSignature Not Verified
Signed by: PANKAJ NAGLE
Signing time: 24-03-2026
11:37:14
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:238305 MCRC-18669-2025
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.”
7. 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.”
8. 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 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 toSignature Not Verified
Signed by: PANKAJ NAGLE
Signing time: 24-03-2026
11:37:14
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:238306 MCRC-18669-2025
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.”
9. Similarly, 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.”
10. 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
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.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PANKAJ NAGLE
Signing time: 24-03-2026
11:37:14
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:23830
7 MCRC-18669-2025
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.”
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PANKAJ NAGLE
Signing time: 24-03-2026
11:37:14
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:23830
8 MCRC-18669-2025
11. 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. Prasad (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 13 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.”
12. The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this Court has
at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of Section 498-A
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PANKAJ NAGLE
Signing time: 24-03-2026
11:37:14
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:23830
9 MCRC-18669-2025
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.2 and respondent No.2 was solemnized on
12.05.2020 as per Hindu Rites and Customs. After their marriage, both
parties settled their life but due to certain issues the complaint had left the
house along with belongings soon after 12 days of the marriage and since
then, she is living in her parental home at her own will and volition.
Petitioner No. 2 – husband filed a petition divorce under Section 13 of the
Hindu Marriage Act against his wife/respondent No.2 which was kept
pending before the Court of law. The FIR has been lodged after getting
notice of divorce petition.
14. 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 on
26/02/2022 at PS – Banda, District Sagar against the petitioner No.2/husband
and Petitioner no. 2 Mother-in-law with allegation of harassment in regard to
demand of dowry. No specific allegation has been made against the
petitioner no. 2 father-in-law and petitioner no. 2 mother-in-law. It appears
that after lapse of around one years of marriage, the complainant has lodged
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PANKAJ NAGLE
Signing time: 24-03-2026
11:37:14
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:23830
10 MCRC-18669-2025
the impugned FIR on which, criminal proceeding have been maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on the petitioner
No.2-husband and his 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 her husband and his family members. 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 criminal proceedings for their prosecution. Under these
circumstances, prima facie, no case is made out against commission of
alleged offence against the petitioners.
15. In the result, the petition filed on behalf of present petitioners under
Section 482 CrPC is allowed and the impugned FIR vide crime No.852 of
2022 registered at Police Station Banda, District – Sagar for offences under
Sections 498A, 406, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code & Sections 3, 4 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioners as well as all consequential
proceedings arising out of said crime are hereby quashed in respect to
petitioners No.1 and 2.
16. In view of the aforesaid, the petition is allowed. No order to costs.
(HIMANSHU JOSHI)
JUDGE
pn
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PANKAJ NAGLE
Signing time: 24-03-2026
11:37:14
