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

rd

ON THE 3 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 35684 of 2022 SMT. MAMTA GARG AND OTHERS Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Asha Ram Shivhare - Advocate and Shri Rahul Bansal - Advocate for the petitioners.

Shri Mohit Shivhare - GA for the respondent/State.

Shri Brijendra Singh Gour - Advocate for the respondent No.2.

ORDER This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashment of FIR bearing Crime No.108/2022 registered at Police Station Mahila Padav, District Gwalior for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 294, 506, 34 of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, as well as consequential proceedings of Criminal Case No.2452/2022 pending before the Court of learned JMFC, Gwalior.

Brief facts of the case are that the marriage of respondent No.2/complainant was solemnized with petitioner No.3 on 06.02.2018 according to Hindu rites. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are the mother-in-law and father-in-law of the complainant respectively. It is alleged that after the marriage, the complainant was subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with demand of dowry by the petitioners. She was allegedly turned out of her matrimonial home on 15.08.2021. Subsequently, FIR was lodged on 30.04.2022. After investigation, charge-sheet has been filed and the matter is pending trial before the learned JMFC.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated due to matrimonial discord. The FIR has been lodged with unexplained delay, which casts serious doubt on the prosecution case. Prior FIRs lodged by the complainant did not contain any allegation of dowry demand or cruelty, which shows that the present FIR is an afterthought. The proceedings under Section 498-A IPC have been initiated as a counterblast to the proceedings initiated by petitioner No.3 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. General and omnibus allegations have been levelled without specific role attributed to each petitioner, particularly petitioner Nos.1 and 2, who are residing separately.

In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Preeti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand, reported in (2010) 7 SCC 667, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that there is a growing tendency to implicate all family members of the accused in criminal cases, particularly without specific allegations. The Court cautioned that courts must be careful and circumspect while dealing with such cases and should not mechanically permit prosecution where the allegations are vague, general, and unsupported by specific acts, thereby emphasizing the need to prevent misuse of criminal law. Further reliance has been placed in the case of Geeta Mehrotra vs. State of U.P., reported in (2012) 10 SCC 741, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that mere naming of a person as an accused is not sufficient to proceed against him or her unless there are specific and distinct allegations indicating involvement. The Court quashed the proceedings against the relatives where the complaint contained general and sweeping allegations without attributing any overt act, reiterating that criminal law should not be used as a tool of harassment. Lastly, reliance is placed in the case of Rajendra Sharma vs. State of U.P., reported in (2017) 8 SCC 746, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that when allegations against an accused are omnibus in nature and no specific role is assigned, continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. The Court emphasized that judicial scrutiny is essential to prevent unnecessary trials where the material on record does not disclose prima facie involvement of the accused.

Learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for r