IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA th ON THE 25 OF JULY, 2024 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 24190 of 2022 RAHUL MEENA AND OTHERS Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Sanjay Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants.

Shri Mukesh Sharma, learned Government Advocate for the respondent / State.

None for respondent No.2, though served.

ORDER The applicants have filed the present M.Cr.C. under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashment of F.I.R. No.46/2022 registered at Police Station - Mahila Thana, District - Indore for commission of offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 294, 506, 34 of the India Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

02. Facts of the case are that applicant No.1 is son of applicants No.2 & 3. Marriage of applicant No.1 was solemnized with respondent No.217.04.2008 as per Hindu Rituals & Customs. Out of the wedlock, respondent No.2 gave birth to a son who is aged about 14 years. Respondent No.2 lodged an FIR alleging that she has been subjected to cruelty for demand of Rs.20,00,000/- by her husband in in-laws.

Signature Not Verified

03. Facts further reveal that applicant No.1 filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court, Indore seeking divorce on the ground of adultery and cruelty. Respondent No.2 appeared before the Family Court on 13.12.2021 and the Court directed for mediation between them, thereafter, she did not appear before the Court and straightway lodged an FIR under Sections 498-A, 323, 294, 506, 34 of the IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act on basis of false allegation. Hence, the present M.Cr.C. is before this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

04. Shri Sanjay Kr. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the FIR is nothing, but a counterblast to the petition filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. So far as the allegations in the FIR are concerned, there are omnibus allegation against the husband, father-in- law and mother-in-law. This fact is also clear that after receipt of notice from the Family Court, she lodged an FIR. There is no such medical report to establish the charge under Section 323 of the IPC. No details have been given in respect of stridhan which is said to have been kept by the present applicants. Applicants No.2 & 3 are aged about 65 & 74 years respectively.

Hence, the M.Cr.C. be allowed.

05. Heard.

06. The Apex Court in the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam &

Others v/s The State of Bihar & Others reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599 has held that this Court at numerous instances has expressed concern over the misuse of Section 498-A of the IPC and the increased tendency of Signature Not Verified implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long term ramifications of a trial the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said judgments that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this Court by way of its judgment has warned the Courts from proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie is made out against them. Paragraph - 18 of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced below:-

"18. The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of section 498A IPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said judgments that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this court by way of its judgments has