HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT GWALIOR :SINGLE BENCH:

{JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK, J.}

MISC.CRIMINAL CASE NO.51674/2022 Major Amit Pathak Vs.

State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.

CRIMINAL REVISION NO.2594/2022 Sumit Pathak Vs.

State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.

CRIMINAL REVISION NO.2595/2022 Sarvesh Chandra Pathak & Anr.

Vs.

State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.

MISC. CRIMINAL CASE NO.25093/2023 Major Amit Pathak Vs.

State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Shri Harshit Sharma and Shri Avinash Chaturvedi – Advocates for the petitioners.

Shri Ravindra Singh Kushwah – Dy. Advocate General for the respondent/State.

Shri R.K. Sharma – Senior Advocate with Shri Mahendra Chaudhary and Shri Abhijeet Singh Tomar – Advocates for respondent No.2/complainant.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

O R D E R

(Delivered on 1^st day of July, 2024)

1. Regard being had to the similitude of the controversy as all cases originate from the same cause of action, all petitions were heard analogously and decided by this common order. For convenience's sake, facts as narrated in M.Cr.C.No.51674/2022 are taken into consideration.

2. Petitioner (of M.Cr.C.No.51674/2022) is husband of respondent No.2 who happens to be his wife and complainant of the case and has filed the FIR vide crime No.38/2021 at Police Station Mahila Thana Padav District Gwalior for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 377, 354, 506, 34 of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the DP Act”). Through this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. petitioner sought following reliefs:

“a. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this quashing petition and the F.I.R. bearing Crime No.38/2021 lodged at P.S. Mahila Thana, District Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh u/s 498-A, 377, 354, 506, 34 of Indian Penal Code 1860 and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and all other consequential proceedings arising therewith against the present petitioner, may kindly be quashed and set -aside and the entire proceedings so initiated &

pending against the petitioner in relation to instant matter, may kindly be dropped.”

3. Complainant/respondent No.2 filed the complaint against the petitioner and other co-accused (who have challenged the proceedings by way of separate criminal revisions) that after marriage being solemnized with the present petitioner on 29-04- 2018 according to Hindu Rites and Rituals at Bhind, after some time, petitioner - Major Amit Pathak/husband and other family members viz. Sumit Pathak (brother-in-law), Sarvesh Chandra Pathak (father-in-law) and Smt. Kusumlata Pathak (mother-in-law) raised dowry demand for Fortuner Car and financial assistance for construction of house. She was subjected to harassment time and again and meanwhile when she conceived then she was forced to abort. Not only that, husband of complainant who is an Army Officer and posted as Major at Manipur, since inception/honeymoon, forced her for unnatural anal and oral sex.

4. Her allegations are that after marriage on 29-04-2018, when they went to Manali for honeymoon, there her husband committed unnatural anal and oral sex. Thereafter, this act was repeated many a times in married life. When she objected, then she was beaten up by her husband. Her father-in-law also tried to gain undue proximity which she resisted. On the basis of such allegations, FIR was registered and investigation was carried out. Except present petitioner – Major Amit Pathak, all petitioners were granted benefit of anticipatory bail. Petitioner -Amit Pathak/husband of complainant was given benefit of bail by the Apex Court. Medical examination of complainant was carried out and her anal and vaginal swabs along with her clothes were seized and referred for FSL report. Thereafter, charge-sheet was filed before the trial Court and charges were framed.

5. Petitioner has challenged registration