IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI th ON THE 19 OF JULY, 2024 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 10695 of 2024 ISHAAN KHAN (SATANIYA) AND OTHERS Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Ashutosh Surana, learned counsel for applicants - accused.

Shri Rajesh Joshi, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of Advocate General for respondent No.1 - State of Madhya Pradesh.

Shri Nilesh Manore, learned counsel for respondent No.2 - complainant.

ORDER This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (herein after referred to as the Code) has been filed for quashment of First Information Report (FIR) vide Crime No.35 of 2024 dated 28.01.2024 (Annexure P/5) registered at Police Station Alot, District Ratlam (MP) for commission of offence under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and also under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

2. Brief facts, as emerging from the FIR relevant for the disposal of this petition are that marriage was solemnized between respondent No.2 and applicant No.1 Ishaan Khan S/o Ishaaq Khan on 20.11.2020, as per Muslim Traditions and Customs. Initially, respondent No.2 was properly treated by her husband and in-laws, but after 5-6 months of the marriage, the applicants started harassing her by taunting that her father has given nothing in dowry. On 22.07.2021, her husband Ishaan Khan along with other applicants hurled Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAMESH filthy abuses against respondent No.2. She was also beaten by applicant No.5 Shahid Khan. On 27.11.2022, her husband applicant No.1 asked respondent No.2 to fetch an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- (rupees fifty lakh) from her father, as he has to pass examination of MIC to perform duties as Medical Practitioner. Her husband given a dictate that he will keep her with him only if she fulfills the demand of Rs.50,00,000/- (rupees fifty lakh) and on this, he expelled her and her son Ivan Khan from matrimonial house. On this, she was compelled to come back to his father Jahid Khan at Alot, District Ratlam (MP) where she narrated the incident to her father as well as mother and lodged the impugned FIR.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that before lodging of the impugned FIR, a written complaint dated 22.01.2023 (Annexure P/3) was lodged at Police Station Ratlam, District Ratlam (MP) with regard to harassment and demand of dowry by in-laws. On 23.01.2023, Police Mahila Thana, Ratlam, after conclusion of the enquiry, advised the complainant / respondent No.2 and applicant No.1 for taking recourse of law; and no action was taken on her complaint.

4. Learned counsel further invited attention of this Court towards a notice dated 02.01.2023 (Annexure P/1) sent through Registered AD on 02.01.2023 by counsel of the applicant and submits that this notice was replied to on behalf of respondent No.2 on 13.01.2023 (Annexure P/2) and after that, FIR dated 28.01.2024 (Annexure P/5) was got registered. Earlier a written complaint (Annexure P/3) given to the Police on 22.01.2023 which does not contain even a whisper about the incident dated 22.07.2021 and 27.11.2022, Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAMESH as narrated in FIR (Annexure P/5). On this basis, learned counsel for the applicants has built up their case that this is a afterthought story, which has been inserted in FIR (Annexure P/5). On the above contentions, learned counsel for the applicants submits that this FIR which is lodged as a counterblast to notice (Annexure P/1) given by applicant No.1 to respondent No.2 may be quashed by allowing this petition.

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 / complainant submits that there is ample evidence collected during investigation in support of the FIR (Annexure P/5). The defence taken by the applicants may be proved by them during trial. This is not a case where exceptional power of this Court given under Section 482 of the Code may be exercised