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

nd

ON THE 2 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 1180 of 2024 MANISH KUMAR SHARMA AND OTHERS Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Praveen Kumar Mishra - Advocate for the petitioners.

Ms. Rashi Dua - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

ORDER This petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (corresponding to 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), has been preferred by the petitioners seeking quashing of FIR bearing Crime No.420/2023 dated 29.09.2023, registered at Police Station-Misrod, District- Bhopal (M.P.), for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323 of Indian Penal Code as well as quashing of all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom, including Criminal Case bearing RCT No.14168/2023 (arising out of FIR bearing Crime No.420/2023), which is pending for adjudication before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, at Bhopal (MP).

2. The brief facts giving rise to present petition are that as per the prosecution case, complainant Smt. Ruhi @ Rubi Sharma (Respondent No.2)

submitted a written complaint before the concerned police station on 29.09.2023 alleging that her marriage with Tarun Sharma (Petitioner No.2) was solemnized on 28.11.2021. It is alleged in the complaint that Manish Kumar Sharma (Petitioner No.1), who is the father-in-law of Respondent No.2/complainant, used to taunt her stating that she was irresponsible and did not take proper care of the family. Petitioner No.1 allegedly told her that several marriage proposals had been received for Tarun Sharma (Petitioner No.2), wherein the prospective families were willing to give a huge amount as dowry, but Respondent No. 2/complainant had neither brought dowry nor was she taking proper care of the family. It is further alleged that all the members of the in-laws’ family used to scold her and harass and torture her, mentally as well as physically. Thereafter, Respondent No.2 allegedly called her parents and returned to her parental home. It is alleged that she has been residing at her father’s house for the past nine months prior to lodging the complaint and the petitioners neither came to take her back nor contacted her. Due to the said conduct, Respondent No.2 is stated to have suffered mental harassment, which compelled her to lodge the written complaint on 29.09.2023. Subsequently, an FIR was registered against the accused persons.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the complaint dated 29.09.2023 filed by respondent No.2/complainant, only omnibus and vague allegations have been made without specifying the date, time or place of the alleged incidents. There is no allegation whatsoever in the said complaint regarding any demand of dowry from the complainant. Prior to lodging the impugned FIR, respondent No.2 neither made any report to the police nor to any other authority alleging cruelty or harassment in connection with dowry by the petitioners. There are no specific allegations against the petitioners concerning the commission of the alleged cruelty or demand of dowry, and therefore, the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners amounts to clear abuse of the process of law. It is further contended that perusal of the FIR and the charge-sheet in their entirety clearly reveals that the allegations levelled by the complainant are vague and omnibus in nature. Despite having ample opportunity, the complainant did not lodge any FIR or private complaint before any Court of law earlier and the impugned FIR has been registered after an unexplained delay of more than nine months. The complaint dated 29.09.2023 appears to have been filed as an afterthought with an ulterior motive to pressurize and malign the reputation of the petitioners. In view of the above, it is therefore prayed that FIR in question as well as all consequential proceedings including the proceedings pending