Madhya Pradesh High Court
Surendra Singh Alawa vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:20314
1 MCRC-18077-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIMANSHU JOSHI
ON THE 23 rd OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 18077 of 2025
SURENDRA SINGH ALAWA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Amit Jain - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Sachindra Raghuwanshi - Panel Lawyer for the State.
Shri Bhanu Prakash Vishwakarma - Advocate for respondent No.2.
ORDER
The petitioners have filed present petition under Section 528 of the BNSS,
2023 for quashing of FIR registered at Police Station Khurai District Sagar at
Crime No.158/2024 for offence under Section 498-A of the IPC and Sections 3/4
of the Dowry Prohibition Act along with all consequential proceedings before the
trial Court.
2. Facts of the case in short are that the marriage between applicant No.1 and
respondent No.2 was solemnized on 31.01.2019 according to Hindu Rites and
Rituals. The respondent alleged that within 2-3 months of the marriage, she was
subjected to cruelty and harassment by the petitioner and his family members for
dowry. It was alleged that they demanded Rs.10/- lakhs in cash and a four-wheeler
from her father. The respondent No.2 further alleged that she had transferred
money to the Bank account of Surendra Singh Alawa and had also repaid a loan of
Rs.4/- lakhs taken by him. Subsequently, on 10.04.2024, the respondent No.2
lodged an FIR at Police Station Khurai, District Sagar against the petitioner No.1
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PANKAJ NAGLE
Signing time: 13-03-2026
17:48:39
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:20314
2 MCRC-18077-2025
and his family members for offences punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC
and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. After investigation, the
Investigating Officer filed a final report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure on 22.06.2024 and the learned trial Court took cognizance of the
offences under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act
against the petitioners.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that all the allegations are far
from the truth and baseless. It is also submitted that the whole contentions of the
FIR are counter blast to an incident, where the respondent No.2 was caught red
handed in a compromising condition with on office colleague Kapil. It is
submitted that the petitioner No.1 is posted at Government College Seoni and
respondent No.2 is working in Government Hospital Khurai, Sagar. The
respondent No.2 stayed at Sagar along with daughter. Attention of the Court was
drawn towards the eye opining incidence took place on 22.04.2023 at Khurai,
when the petitioner No.1 has given a surprise visit at the house of respondent No.2,
wherein the respondent No.2 and his office colleague Kapil were found in
compromising situation in the house at 7 AM. A Maffinama (Annexure A/3) was
also placed on record, wherein the respondent No.1 as well as Kapil has admitted
their illicit relationship since one year. The learned counsel for the petitioners has
also drawn attention of this Court on decree of divorce dated 29.12.2025 passed by
the Judicial Magistrate Senior Division, Manavar, District Dhar. It is submitted
that this decree is a contested decree. It was also argued that since marriage the
respondent No.2 is residing at Khurai and the petitioner No.1/husband is residing
at Seoni, whereas the petitioner No.2 is residing at Indore. In such circumstances,
no question of dowry demand arose. The FIR is nothing more than a counter blast,
the present FIR has been filed with the sole intention to harass the petitioner and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PANKAJ NAGLE
Signing time: 13-03-2026
17:48:39
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:20314
3 MCRC-18077-2025
his family. Thus, a prayer for dismissal of the FIR was made. Hence, it is prayed
that the present petition be allowed and FIR as well as other consequential
proceedings may also be quashed.
4 Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 oppose the arguments. It is
vehemently submitted that the nature of the petitioner No.1/husband has been very
cruel, aggressive. It is also submitted that behaviour of mother is also rude to the
respondent no.2/ wife. The counsel for the respondent No.2 denied any such
incidence caused on 22.04.2023. The learned counsel for the State has supported
filing of charge sheet and FIR. It is submitted that all the arguments put forth by
the counsel for the petitioners are subject to evidence. The allegations are required
to be proved by leading cogent evidence. A prayer for dismissal of the petition is
made.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the documents available on
record with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties.
6. Perusal of the record of the case revels that the marriage between the
petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 was solemnized on 31.01.2019 at Dhar and
out of their wedlock, a girl child was born in the year 07.12.2021. The petitioner
N. 2 is the mother of petitioner No.1. and mother-in-law of respondent No.2. The
FIR reveals that the behaviour of petitioner No.1 (husband) and petitioner No.2
(mother-in-law) was allegedly cruel and aggressive, and that a demand of dowry of
Rs.10 lakhs in cash along with a four-wheeler was made. It is further alleged that
Respondent No.2 was subjected to physical and mental harassment by the
petitioners, including the use of filthy language, as a result of which her life
became miserable.
7. After registration of the FIR, the investigation commenced and upon
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PANKAJ NAGLE
Signing time: 13-03-2026
17:48:39
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:20314
4 MCRC-18077-2025
completion thereof, a charge sheet dated 22.06.2024 was filed against the
petitioners for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC and
Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
8. From the record, it is admitted position that the respondent No.2 is working at
Government Hospital Khurai and the petitioner No.1 is posted at Government
College Seoni. This Court has perused the decree passed by the Judicial Magistrate
Senior Division, Manavar District – Dhar dated 29.12.2025 placed on record. A
close reading of the impugned order reveals that, even in those proceedings, the
issue regarding Respondent No.2 allegedly being caught red-handed in a
compromising situation was raised, and the learned Trial Court has considered and
dealt with the said issue. The Court has categorically held that the respondent
No.2 has failed to prove her innocence on this issue. At this stage, this issue has
reached to the conclusion. The record of the case also reveals that the respondent
No.2 was also created some nuisance in her transfer and subsequently her transfer
got cancelled. All these series of events creates doubt upon the conduct of the
respondent no.2.
9. In the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 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 preventSignature Not Verified
Signed by: PANKAJ NAGLE
Signing time: 13-03-2026
17:48:39
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:203145 MCRC-18077-2025
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 the concerned Act,
providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the
aggrieved party.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PANKAJ NAGLE
Signing time: 13-03-2026
17:48:39
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:20314
6 MCRC-18077-2025
(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.”
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.
10. 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 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 andSignature Not Verified
Signed by: PANKAJ NAGLE
Signing time: 13-03-2026
17:48:39
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:20314
7 MCRC-18077-2025
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.”
11. 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.”
12. 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. 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 ofSignature Not Verified
Signed by: PANKAJ NAGLE
Signing time: 13-03-2026
17:48:39
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:203148 MCRC-18077-2025
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.”
13. 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 andSignature Not Verified
Signed by: PANKAJ NAGLE
Signing time: 13-03-2026
17:48:39
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:203149 MCRC-18077-2025
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.”
14. 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.
15. 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 31.01.2019 as per Hindu
Rites and Rituals. After their marriage, both parties settled their life being both the
parties are working in government jobs and posted in different cities. When some
unwarranted incidence happened, the petitioner No.1/husband filed a declaration
for decree of divorce being Civil Suit No. 5-A of 2024 on 25.01.2024, then as a
counter blast, the FIR has been registered on 10.04.2024.
16. When the facts of the case in hand are tested on anvil of the aforesaid facts, it
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PANKAJ NAGLE
Signing time: 13-03-2026
17:48:39
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:20314
10 MCRC-18077-2025
is apparent that as a counter-blast, the respondent No.2 lodged an FIR on
10.04.2024 against the petitioners with allegation of harassment in regard to
demand of dowry against them. It is to be seen that the petitioners No.1 & 2 are
residing separately from the respondent No.2. No specific allegation has been
made against the petitioners. It appears that after lapse of around one years 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 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 criminal
proceedings for their prosecution. Under these circumstances, prima facie , no case
is made out against commission of alleged offence against petitioners.
17. In the result, the petition filed on behalf of present petitioners under Section
482 CrPC is allowed. The impugned FIR vide Crime No.158/2024 registered at
Police Station Khurai for offences punishable under Sections 498-A of IPC and
Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act as well as all consequential proceedings
arising out of said crime, in RCT No 443/2024 pending before the JMFC, Khurai
District Sagar (MP) are hereby quashed.
18. The petition is allowed with no order to costs.
(HIMANSHU JOSHI)
JUDGE
pn
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PANKAJ NAGLE
Signing time: 13-03-2026
17:48:39
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:20314
11 MCRC-18077-2025
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PANKAJ NAGLE
Signing time: 13-03-2026
17:48:39
