Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL, J.
Punit Jain And Others - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others - Respondent
Misc. Criminal Case No. 31811 of 2025
Decided On : 19-12-2025
(1) Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 -- S. 528 -- scope of power -- case prima facie established from material available on record -- would not apposite for High Court to quash criminal proceedings considering chances of conviction or acquittal -- where material evidence is available against applicant, it should be left to be decided by trial Court, which is the appropriate forum for evaluation of said materials and evidences. (2002) 1 SCC 555, (2009) SCC 516, (2009) 4 SCC 439, 2019 (4) JLJ 50 = (2019) 133 SCC 62, (2012) 9 SCC 460, 2024 LawSuit (SC) 112 and 2024 LawSuit (SC) 847 followed. [Para 11]
(2) Criminal P.C. 1973 -- Ss. 188 and 482 -- Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 -- Ss. 85, 351(2) and 3(5) -- Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 -- Ss. 3 and 4 -- Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 -- S. 528 -- quashing of FIR -- sanction for inquiry or trial of offence committed outside India -- alleged in FIR that offence not only committed in Japan but also in India -- applicants tortured her even when she returned from Japan to India -- sanction u/s. 188 of CrPC applies only at cognizance or trial stage, not as prerequisite for FIR/investigation -- FIR cannot be quashed at this early stage only on this ground -- case is at initial stage, investigation is still pending and charge-sheet has not been filed. (2011) 9 SCC 527, (1993) 3 SCC 609 and (2022) 3 Crimes 279 distinguished. [Paras 13 & 14]
(3) Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 -- S. 528 -- Criminal P. C., 1973 -- S. 482 -- Constitution of India -- Art. 226 -- Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 -- Ss. 85, 351(2) and 3(5) -- Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 -- Ss. 3 and 4 -- maintainability of application for quashing of FIR -- for quashing of FIR, High Court can exercise jurisdiction under Art. 226 of Constitution -- if charge-sheet has been submitted and cognizance has been taken and same has been placed along with FIR on record, it can be quashed by invoking S. 528 of BNSS -- since charge-sheet and cognizance have not been placed on record, FIR cannot be quashed by invoking provisions of S. 528 of BNSS (old S. 482 of CrPC) -- petition not maintainable. Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 13424 of 2025 decided on 3.9.2025 followed. 2025 SCC Online SC 1494, (2025) INSC 160, (2025), SCC Online SC 1094, (2024) SCC Online SC 3836, (2023) 15 SCC 488, (2022) 6 SCC 599, (2025) SCC Online SC 884, (2023) SCC Online SC 1622, 2017(2) JLJ 372 = (2017) SCC Online MP 394, 2025 SCC Online SC 1322, (1994) 4 SCC 260, M. Cr. C. No. 16725 of 2020 decided on 6.7.2020, 1994 SCC (Cri.) 63, 2022 SCC Online SC 820, (2025) SCC Online Ker. 4789, 2018(2) JLJ 374, (2012) 10 SCC 155, (2022) 13 SCC 136, (2005) 12 SCC 338, (2002) 6 SCC 455, (2019) 5 SCC 384, (2021) 6 SCC 116, Appeal No. 330 of 2021, 2015 (2) JLJ 1 = (2015) 11 SCC 260, Cr. M. C. No. 6184 of 2023, (2022) 5 AIILJ 421 and (2024) 4 SCC 749 referred to. [Paras 16 & 17]
¼1½ ukxfjd lqj{kk lafgrk] 2023 & /kkjk 528 & 'kfä dh O;kfIr & vfHkys[k ij miyC/k lkexzh ls çFke–"V;k ekeyk LFkkfir & nks"kflf) ;k nks"keqfä dh laHkkoukvksa ij fopkj dj nkafMd dk;Zokgh vfHk[kafMr djuk mPp U;k;ky; ds fy, mi;qä ugha gksxk & tgk¡ vkosnd ds fo:) rkfRod lk{; miyC/k gS ogk¡ mls fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk fofuf'pr fd, tkus ds fy, NksM+ fn;k tkuk pkfg,] tks mä lkexzh vkSj lk{; ds ewY;kadu ds fy, leqfpr U;k;ky; gSA ¼2002½ 1 ,llhlh 555] ¼2009½ ,llhlh 516] ¼2009½ 4 ,llhlh 439] 2019 ¼4½ ts,yts 50 % ¼2019½ 133 ,llhlh 62] ¼2012½ 9 ,llhlh 460] 2024 y‚lwV ¼,llh½ 112 rFkk 2024 y‚lwV ¼,llh½ 847 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 11½
¼2½ naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 & /kkjk 188 rFkk 482 & U;k; lafgrk] 2023 & /kkjk 85] 351¼2½ rFkk 3¼5½ & ngst çfr"ks/k vf/kfu;e] 1961 & /kkjk 3 rFkk 4 & ukxfjd lqj{kk lafgrk] 2023 & /kkjk 528 & çFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ dk vfHk[kaMu & Hkkjr ls ckgj fd, x, vijk/k dh tk¡p ;k fopkj.k ds fy, eatwjh & çFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ esa vfHkdfFkr fd vijk/k tkiku esa gh ugha] vfirq Hkkjr esa Hkh fd;k x;k & tkiku ls Hkkjr ykSVus ij Hkh vkosndx.k us mls ;a=.kk nh & naM çfØ;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 188 ds v/khu eatwjh laKku ;k fopkj.k ds çØe ij gh ykxw gksrh gS] çFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ vUos"k.k dh iwokZis{kk ds :i esa ugha & ek= bl vk/kkj ij çFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ bl vkjafHkd çØe ij vfHk[kafMr ugha dh tk ldrh & çdj.k vkjafHkd çØe ij gS] vUos"k.k vHkh yafcr gS rFkk vkjksii= çLrqr ugha fd;k x;k gSA ¼2011½ 9 ,llhlh 527] ¼1993½ 3 ,llhlh 609 rFkk ¼2022½ 3 ØkbEl 279 çHksfnrA ¼iSjk 13 ,oa 14½
¼3½ ukxfjd lqj{kk lafgrk] 2023 & /kkjk 528 & naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 & /kkjk 482 & Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuqPNsn 226 & U;k; lafgrk] 2023 & /kkjk 85] 351¼2½ rFkk 3¼5½ & ngst çfr"ks/k vf/kfu;e] 1961 & /kkjk 3 rFkk 4 & çFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ ds vfHk[kaMu ds fy, vkosnu pyus ;ksX; gksuk & çFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ ds vfHk[kaMu ds fy, mPp U;k;ky; lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 226 ds v/khu vf/kdkfjrk ç;qä dj ldrk gS & ;fn vkjksii= is'k dj fn;k x;k gS vkSj laKku dj fy;k x;k gS rFkk mls çFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ ds lkFk vfHkys[k ij yk;k x;k gS] rks mls ukxfjd lqj{kk lafgrk dh /kkjk 528 dk vkJ; ysdj vfHk[kafMr fd;k tk ldrk gS & vkjksii= vkSj laKku dks vfHkys[k ij ugha yk;k x;k blfy, ukxfjd lqj{kk lafgrk dh /kkjk 528 ¼naM çfØ;k lafgrk dh iqjkuh /kkjk 482½ ds mica/kksa dk vkJ; ysdj çFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ vfHk[kafMr ugha dh tk ldrh & ;kfpdk pyus ;ksX; ughaA vihy dh fo'ks"k btktr ¼nkafMd½ Øekad 13424 lu~ 2025 fu.khZr fnukad 3-9-2025 vuqlfjrA 2025 ,llhlh v‚uykbu ,llh 1494] ¼2025½ vkb,u,llh 160] ¼2025½] ,llhlh v‚uykbu ,llh 1094] ¼2024½ ,llhlh v‚uykbu ,llh 3836] ¼2023½ 15 ,llhlh 488] ¼2022½ 6 ,llhlh 599] ¼2025½ ,llhlh v‚uykbu ,llh 884] ¼2023½ ,llhlh v‚uykbu ,llh 1622] 2017 ¼2½ ts,yts 372 % ¼2017½ ,llhlh v‚uykbu ,eih 394] 2025 ,llhlh v‚uykbu ,llh 1322] ¼1994½ 4 ,llhlh 260] çdh.kZ nkafMd ekeyk Øekad 16725 lu~ 2020 fu.khZr fnukad 6-7-2020] 1994 ,llhlh ¼fØ-½ 63] 2022 ,llhlh v‚uykbu ,llh 820] ¼2025½ ,llhlh v‚uykbu dsjy 4789] 2018 ¼2½ ts,yts 374] ¼2012½ 10 ,llhlh 155] ¼2022½ 13 ,llhlh 136] ¼2005½ 12 ,llhlh 338] ¼2002½ 6 ,llhlh 455] ¼2019½ 5 ,llhlh 384] ¼2021½ 6 ,llhlh 116] nkafMd vihy Øekad 330 lu~ 2021] 2015 ¼2½ ts,yts 1 % ¼2015½ 11 ,llhlh 260] lhvkj-,e-lh- Øekad 6184 lu~ 2023] ¼2022½ 5 ,vkbvkb,yts 421 rFkk ¼2024½ 4 ,llhlh 749 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 16 ,oa 17½
ORDER :
PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL, J.
The petitioners have filed the present petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 for quashment of the FIR bearing No.198/2025 registered against the petitioners at Police Station Mahila Thana, District Bhopal under Sections 85, 351(2), 3(5) of BNS and Sections 3, 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and all consequential proceedings arising thereto.
2. As per the prosecution story, petitioners No.1 and 2 father-in-law and mother-in-law and petitioner No.3 is husband of the complainant/respondent No.2 - Disha Jain. According to the prosecution case, on 12.06.2025, respondent No.2/complainant lodged the report against petitioners alleging therein that she got married to petitioner No.3 on 04.01.2023 as per the Hindu Rites at Jaipur, Rajasthan. Father of complainant/respondent No.2 has given all household articles, jewellery and cash. At the time of marriage, her mother-in-law and father-in-law have demanded a sum of Rs.30 lac and jewellery of Rs.10 lac. At the time of engagement, her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law demanded Rs.10 lac which was given by the father of complainant to the petitioners. When complainant went to Japan with her husband then petitioners started torturing her and snatched all Stridhan and committed marpeet with her. They also threatened to kill her. Her husband in 2023 came to Bhopal twice and demanded Rs.50 lac from her father. Petitioner No.3/husband after consuming alcohol used to beat her. Due to threatening by her husband, complainant returned back to India. She tired her best to adjust in the petitioner's family but petitioner pressurized her either to give Rs.50 lac as dowry or to give divorce. Thereafter, the complainant filed the report. On the basis of which, Crime No.198/2025 was registered at Mahila Police Station, District Bhopal, against the petitioners.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the present crime. It is further submitted that soon after the marriage, parties shifted to Japan, but respondent No.2/complainant was not feeling happy with petitioners No.1 and 2 who were living with newly weds and started creating all kinds of ruckus and bickering on regular basis with her husband/petitioner No.3. She also compelled and coerced the petitioner No.3 to live separately in Japan and abandon his parents. It is further submitted that petitioner No.3 repeatedly asked to shift to Bhopal and live with her parents in in-laws as son-in-law but petitioner No.3 declined it. It is further submitted that intangible torture of respondent No.2 forced the petitioner No.3 to take medical therapy to save his life.
3.1 Learned counsel for petitioners has further submitted that respondent No.2 was employee at Japan and she finally settled all her dues with the employer over there and transferred all the money to her account in India. It is further submitted that FIR has been lodged with inordinate delay for which no plausible explanation has been given. It is also contended that petitioners No.1 and 2 at the residence of petitioner No.3 in Japan and they wanted to stay there but respondent No.2 compelled her husband/petitioner No3 to ask his parents to go for vacations for two nights to Hakone (Japan). It is further submitted that petitioner No.3 and respondent No.2 were enjoying the post marriage early life very happy which is corroborated by their photographs. It is further contended that respondent No.2 with to extort money from the petitioners issued a notice dated 24.09.2024 to petitioner No.3 and asked him to respond the notice but the allegations levelled in the FIR are conspicuously silent. It is also contended that mediation proceeding occurred between the petitioner No.3/husband and respondent No.2/wife at mediation centre attached with the Delhi High Court, but no settlement could be arrived between the parties. It is further submitted that respondent No.3, who happens to be Investigating Off
The court ruled that vague and generalized allegations in a FIR do not justify criminal proceedings, favoring the quashing of the FIR to prevent abuse of legal process.
Inherent powers under Section 482 of CrPC should be exercised sparingly to prevent misuse of criminal law, quashing only when FIR doesn't disclose an offence.
Cruelty and dowry offences – Matrimonial cases, being offence not against society, parties are required to be given opportunity to reconcile their strained matrimonial relationship.
The court emphasized that the veracity of defense materials cannot be examined at the stage of quashing the FIR and that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly. It also highlighted that ....
The court upheld that prima facie allegations in the FIR warranted continuation of proceedings, as quashing should only occur in clear abuse of process or lack of evidence.
Dowry offences – Criminal case cannot proceed on general and omnibus allegations.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
