Back
2025 Supreme(MP) 217
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA, J.
Nikhil Rastogi – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others – Respondent
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 56367 of 2023
Decided On : 23-01-2025
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Quashing of FIR
Act Referred
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE: S.482
DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT: S.3, S.4
HINDU MARRIAGE ACT: S.13(1)(ia), S.9
Headnote
(B) Inherent powers - The scope and limits of the court's inherent jurisdiction, emphasizing that it should refrain from interfering where an FIR discloses a cognizable offence and where prosecution is not malicious or vexatious. (Paras 11, 12, 26)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner and complainant married in November 2017, lived together briefly, and subsequent criminal allegations arose after divorce proceedings were initiated. Issue of whether the FIR contained sufficient merits and if the allegations constituted a civil wrong as opposed to a criminal offence.
Findings of Court:
Dismissal of petition for quashing FIR; prima facie ingredients of alleged offences were established in the FIR.
Issues: Whether the allegations in the FIR constitute a cognizable offence and whether the proceedings should be quashed under inherent jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the FIR in question disclosed prima facie ingredients constituting a cognizable offence; thus, interference was unwarranted, emphasizing non-intervention without adequate legal grounds.
Result: Petition dismissed.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Shri Nikhil Rastogi (Applicant in person.)
For the Respondent: Shri Mukesh Parwal, Shri H.Y. Mehta
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. marriage and initial context of dispute. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments on fir's validity. (Para 5) |
| 3. court's analysis of previous decision. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. principles regarding quashing fir. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. guidelines on quashing proceedings. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 6. observations on paras. (Para 23) |
| 7. scope of judicial interference under cr.p.c. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 8. conclusion on merit of quashing request. (Para 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 9. dismissal of the petition. (Para 32 , 33) |
ORDER :
VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA, J.
The present petition is filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C for quashment of FIR No.148/2022 registered at police station Vijay Nagar, Indore under section 420, 406, 498-A of IPC and 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and criminal proceedings instituted by the respondent no.2 against the petitioner vide RCT No.1809/2023 pending before the JMFC, Indore.
2. In the year 2017, the marriage was performed between the petitioner and respondent no.2 as per Indian customs and traditions in New Delhi, India. After the solemnization of marriage on 25.11.2017, the complainant and the petitioner stayed at the petitioners' father residence in Pant Nagar, Uttarakhand for a period of 1 week. On 07.12.2017 the petitioner and the complainant travelled to United States of America. It is submitted that there was a mutual agreement between the parties that the complainant will be staying with petitioner in USA after the marriage.
3. On 03.03.2022, the complainant had sent a legal notice to the petitioner seeking divorce by mutual consent and asking for Rs.1 crores alimony. The petitioner filed a petition under section 13(1)(ia) of HINDU MARRIAGE ACT for dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Saket New Delhi. The complainant has also filed application under section 9 of HINDU MARRIAGE ACT for restitution of conjugal rights with the petitioner before the District Court, Indore. Thereafter, she lodged report against the petitioner and his father as FIR No.148/2022 at Police Station Vijay Nagar, Indore for commission of offence 420, 406, 498-A of IPC and 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 4. It is argued that bare reading of the FIR shows that the ingredients of offence under section 406, 420, 498-A of IPC and section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act do not exist and therefore, FIR is liable to be quashed. It is also argued that the marriage had taken place in November, 2017 and the FIR was lodged on 02.02.2022. In the FIR, the correct facts were not mentioned and they misrepresented the facts. It is submitted that the said FIR was lodged after filing of the divorce petition by the petitioner. Further he submits that the allegation of not paying the amount of 30,000/- US Dollars to the aunt of the complainant is false as the said amount was paid to the account of the aunt of the complainant. The petitioner submitted that the FIR and the criminal case is nothing but is a result of abuse of process of law. Hence, the same is liable to be quashed.
5. It is further submitted that the allegations are prominently of civilnature which have been given colour of a criminal case on the said ground also the FIR is liable to be quashed.
6. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the co-ordinate bench at Jabalpur in the case of Ganpat Meena and Ors Vs. State of MP and Anr passed in M.Cr.C No.44242/2023 decided on 14.11.2024. He also placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Kailashben Mahendrabhai Patel Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. passed in Criminal Appeal No.4003/2024.
7. Learned counsel for the state and respondent no.2 opposed the prayer and vehemently argued that the same FIR was challenged by the father of the applicant Sunil Rastogi in M.Cr.C No.45474/2022 and this Court examined the facts of the case and also the allegation contained in FIR in para no
