IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE

th

ON THE 8 OF DECEMBER, 2025 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 26479 of 2025 SUNITA RAGHUWANSHI AND OTHERS Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Harshit Raghuwanshi - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri A P S Tomar - Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.

ORDER The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 / Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed by the petitioners seeking quashment of FIR registered vide Crime No. 20/2023 at Police Station Mahila Thana, District Guna, for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, along with the charge-sheet and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have not committed any offence. It is contended that the allegations levelled in the FIR are vague, omnibus, and general in nature, and the entire prosecution case is founded upon a fabricated and exaggerated story. At no point of time, the petitioners demanded dowry or subjected the respondent No. 2 to cruelty on account of dowry demand.

3. It is further submitted that petitioner No.1 is mother-in-law of respondent No.2 and petitioner No.2 is brother-in-law (Jeth) of respondent No.2. The marriage between Prashant Raghuvanshi (son of petitioner No.1 and brother of petitioner No.2) and respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 22.06.2022, and the couple lived harmoniously after marriage. After the customary first return, respondent No. 2 accompanied her husband to his place of posting, where certain matrimonial disputes arose between the husband and wife, which gradually escalated into a legal dispute. The petitioners, who are relatives, have no role whatsoever in the personal differences between the spouses and have been falsely implicated with an oblique motive.

4. Learned counsel further submits that in the present case, charges were framed in January, 2024, and till date, no evidence has been led by the complainant before the trial court. Respondent No. 2 has been residing at her maternal home, and the criminal proceedings are being continued only to harass the petitioners. Continuation of such proceedings, in the facts and circumstances of the case, would amount to a gross abuse of process of law. Hence, in the interest of justice, the FIR and all subsequent proceedings deserve to be quashed.

5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and submitted that the FIR was registered on 11.07.2023, whereas the present petition has been filed only on 16.06.2025, after a delay of approximately two years. It is further contended that the grounds raised by the petitioners involve disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., and therefore, the petition deserves dismissal.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. In the present case, the FIR was lodged on 11.07.2023, whereas the petitioners have approached this Court only on 16.06.2025, after a delay of nearly two years. No satisfactory explanation has been furnished for not invoking the jurisdiction of this Court at an earlier point of time. Such delayed approach reflects lack of diligence, and the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked on vague and belated grounds.

8. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code or the power of superintendence vested in the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution are not expected to be invoked very lightly. Here is the case wherein the petitioners have slept over their supposed grievances for about two years and it is apparent that they have approached this Court only when they came to know that the court was actually proceeding wi