IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1878 of 2024 GHANSHYAM PANDIT AND OTHERS Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Harish Chandra Tripathi, counsel for the petitioner.

Shri Jayesh Yadav, counsel for the State.

Ms. Deesha Goyal, counsel for respondent no.2.

Heard on: 27.11.2025 Delivered on: 12.02.2026 ORDER This criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C, is preferred being aggrieved by the order dated 07.03.2024 in RCT No.617/2021 by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sendhwa District Barwani whereby the charges under Section 498-A of IPC and under Section 4 of The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 has been framed against the revision petitioners in a case arising out of Crime No.285/2021 registered At Police Station Verla, District Barwani.

2. The revision petitioner no.1 is husband, revision petitioner no.2 is father-in-law, revision petitioner no.3 is mother-in-law, revision petitioner no.4 is brother-in-law and revision petitioner no.5 is sister-in-law of respondent no.2/complainant i.e. revision petitioner no.1 is husband of the complainant and other revision petitioners are relatives of husband/revision petitioner no.1.

3. Facts of the case are that respondent no.2 was marred to revision petitioner no.1 on 11.03.2012. A written compliant was filed by respondent no.2 on 14.11.2021 against the revision petitioners and the First Information report bearing Crime No.285/2021 was registered against them on 14.11.2021 under Sections 498-A read with Section 34 of IPC and under Section 4 read with section 3 of The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. After investigation, the final report was submitted before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sendhwa District Barwani, MP. and vide impugned order, the charges were framed against the revision petitioners.

4. Challenging the order of framing of charges, this revision petition has been preferred on the ground that neither the mobile has been seized nor the call details records have been collected to prove that the petitioner no.1 has threatened and demanded dowry/money from the father-in-law of the revision petitioner by using mobile on 06.10.2021. The FIR has been lodged after the delay of 3 and half years on 14.11.2021 and no plausible explanation has been given by the complainant for the said delay in FIR. Revision Petitioner no.1 issued a legal notice through his counsel for Divorce on 23.08.2021 and the petitioner has filed a case for divorce under Section 13(1)(1-a)(1-b) of Hindu marriage Act, 1955 in the Court of Vasai Mumbai, Maharashtra and the same was registered as Marriage Petition No.573/2021. After receiving the notice of matrimonial proceedings, the report has been lodged on 14.11.2021 only to counter blast with malafide intention. The plain reading of the complaint filed by respondent no.2 does not render any substantive act of the revision petitioners to frame the aforesaid charges. The allegations are general and omnibus in nature. The family members i.e. revision petitioner no.2 to 5 are residing separately and no role can be attributed by them. Revision petitioner has relied on Priti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand; (2010) 7 SCC 667.

5. The revision petitioners further relied on the receipt of India Post dated 24.08.2021 through which it is stated that the notice dated 23.08.2021 was sent to respondent no.2 through Advocate Archana R. Dhore from Pune, Maharashtra and the copy of the petition dated 29.08.2021 filed under Sections 13(1)(i-a)(i-b) of Hindu marriage Act, 1955 before the Senior Civil Judge, Vasai, District Thane, Maharashtra.

6. The documents submitted there I.A. No.7994/2024 and 11888/2025 are taken on record.

7. Perused the material produced before this Court.

8. Before dealing with the rival contentions, it is appropriate to refer to the scope of exercise of power under section 227 of the Cr.P.C or presently section 250 of the BNSS, 2023. The Apex Cour