IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B. P. SHARMA

rd

ON THE 3 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 13664 of 2022 GANESH PRASAD PARDHI AND OTHERS Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Utkarsh Agrawal - Advocate for the petitioners.

Shri Jitendra Shrivastava - Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.

Shri Shishir Kumar Soni - Advocate for respondent No.2.

ORDER By way of the present petition filed under Section 482 of CrPC for seeking quashment of FIR dated 01.10.2021 bearing crime No.552/2021 and charge sheet dated 23.12.2021 registered at Police Station - Lalbarra, District - Balaghat (M.P.) for offence punishable under Section 498-A, 323, 313, 506 and 34 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. As per the prosecution case, petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 got married on 28.05.2019 at village Palakamathi, Police Station Lalbarra, District Balaghat. Petitioner No.1 is the real brother of petitioner No.5. Petitioner No.2 and petitioner No.3 are the sister and brother-in-law (husband of petitioner No.2), respectively, of petitioner No.5. Petitioner No.4 is the mother of petitioner No.5. Respondent No.2 made a written complaint against petitioner No.1 alleging that after the marriage, he used to physically assault her under the influence of liquor. She further alleged that when she asked her in-laws to advise her husband not to consume liquor, they instead supported her husband and started demanding dowry of Rs.3 Lakhs. In the month of October 2019, when she became pregnant, her husband and his family members threatened her that if she did not bring Rs. 3 Lakhs from her parents, they would not accept her or her child. It is further alleged that her husband kicked her on the stomach, resulting in bleeding, and that her mother-in-law gave her some medicine due to which a miscarriage occurred. Thereafter the husband and other family members continuously harassed her demanding money and she was forced to live in her parental house.

3. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that petitioners No.1 to 3 were not even present on the alleged date of incident. Petitioners No.1 and 2 are government servant. Petitioner No.1 is a Constable in RPF, Nainpur, whereas petitioner No.2 is a Government School Teacher at village Bamhangaon Tahsil Harda and her husband petitioner No.3 is an agriculturist residing at village Katangtola District Balaghat. The attendance register of petitioner No.1 and 2 of their respective departments have been filed to prove their presence at their place of duty on the alleged date of incident. They were not sharing the house with the respondent No.2, therefore, no offence is made out against the petitioners No.1 to 3. A false FIR has been lodged against them.

4. It is further submitted that there is an unexplained delay of 1 year and 10 months in lodging the FIR. Material collected during investigation which are part of charge sheet could not constitute any offence registered against the petitioners and any further proceedings will only cause undue harassment to the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the allegations made in the FIR even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in its entirety do not primafacie make out a case against the petitioner. Moreover, the allegation made in the FIR are absurd and abuse of the process of law. The petitioners No.1 to 3 lives separately since the marriage of respondent No.2. It is further submitted that no preliminary enquiry is made against them prior to lodging of FIR.

5. As regards the abortion, learned counsel for the petitioners has first drawn attention of this Court to the page no.43 which is the MLC prepared by Dr.Ritika on 02.10.2021. According to the history given by the respondent no.2, the doctor has recorded that she was pregnant with three months and aborted in December, 2019. Doctor opines that no opinion can be given regarding the abortion at