IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
Sanjay Dwivedi, J.
Varun Tiwari – Petitioner
Versus
State Of Madhya Pradesh And Another – Respondents
M.Cr.C. No.55577 of 2024
Decided On : 24-04-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments presented by both parties. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's analysis of allegations and evidence. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. discussion of relevant case law. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. ratio decidendi established by the court. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 6. final conclusion and order. (Para 22 , 23) |
ORDER :
Sanjay Dwivedi, J.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is finally heard.
2. This petition has been filed invoking the inherent powers provided to the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure / Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for quashing of FIR and also the charge-sheet filed by the respondent/prosecution on an offence registered vide Crime No.29/2024 on 16.08.2024 at Police Station Mahila Thana, District Satna, under Sections 498 -A and 294 of the Indian Penla Code.
3. The facts leading to the present petition lie in a narrow compass are that;
(3.1) The petitioner and respondent No.2 entered into marriage on 22.05.2013 which was solemnized as per Hindu Rities. The petitioner is a police officer and after marriage, respondent No.2 was residing with the petitioner.
(3.2) On 27.01.2024, a complaint was made by respondent No.2 to the SHO, Mahila Thana Satna, District Satna, alleging therein that she entered into marriage with the present petitioner in the year 2013 and out of the said wedlock, she has given birth to a child, who on the date of complaint was about 9 years old. She has also stated that till 2-3 years of marriage, the attitude of the petitioner towards respondent No.2 was normal but after delivering the child, his attitude got changed and he refused to keep respondent No.2 with him. The petitioner had left respondent No.2 to her in-laws house at Khargone whereas he started living at his place of posting i.e. at Bhind where he was living alone and whenever he used to come to meet his mother, then he and his mother, both used to abuse respondent No.2 and also to her parents saying that adequate dowry was not given as per their status and they used to mentally harass respondent No.2. The allegations of physical assault was also levelled in the said complaint. They also threatened her that they were thinking of his second marriage and harassment was being done with an intention to provoke her to commit suicide.
(3.3) As per the complaint, the situation became unbearable and therefore, respondent No.2 called her father and then on 23.01.2024, the petitioner and his mother created such a scene and abused respondent No.2 and her father so badly then they called the police and with the help of police somehow they managed to escape from the scene and reached a hotel.
(3.4) It is mentioned that at Khargone the report could not be made to the police under the fear and threat of the petitioner and it is requested that appropriate proceeding be initiated against the petitioner.
(3.5) Another complaint was made to the Superintendent of Police on 29.01.2024 reiterating the same facts then FIR was registered on 16.08.2024 vide Crime No.29/2024 and offence got registered under Section 498 -A and 294 of IPC .
(3.6) As per the contents of FIR, the petitioner immediately after marriage used to mentally and physically harass respondent No.2 and she used to live with her husband wherever he was posted.
(3.7) In the year 2014, she had delivered a child namely Aryan Tiwari and thereafter, in the year 2017, the petitioner was transferred to Balaghat.
(3.8) It is also mentioned in the complaint that the father-in-law used to try reconcile with the petitioner but the relationship between the petitioner/husband and respondent No.2/wife became more and more bitter day by day.
(3.9) In the year 2019, the petitioner got transferred to Khargone and since the petitioner was harassing respondent No.2 very badly, therefore, she called her father and informed the Superintendent of Police, Bhind and Police Statio
Allegations under Section 498-A IPC must be specific; omnibus claims lack legal sufficiency to support prosecution.
(1) Cruelty – Term “cruelty” cannot be established without specific instances – Mere general allegations of harassment without pointing out specifics against such persons would not be sufficient to c....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a complaint filed as a counter-blast, after the initiation of divorce proceedings, and lacking prior complaints or corroboration, may be consi....
Section 498A of IPC (Section 85 of BNS) is often being misused and Court must guard against it – Making vague and generalised allegations during matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinized, will lead t....
General and unsupported allegations in matrimonial disputes cannot sustain criminal charges against relatives; specific acts must be demonstrated to justify prosecution.
Allegations under Section 498A must meet specific legal thresholds; trivial irritations do not constitute cruelty, and misuse of legal provisions in matrimonial disputes is subject to quashing.
(1) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 85 and 86 – Matrimonial cruelty – Section 86 is nothing but verbatim reproduction of Section 498A of IPC – Legislature requested to look into the issue ta....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.