IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B. P. SHARMA st ON THE 21 OF JANUARY, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 13476 of 2023 ARVIND MARAVI AND OTHERS Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Ghanshyam Sharma - Advocate for the petitioners.

Shri Dinesh Patel - Government Advocate for respondent/State.

Shri Dhananjay Asati - Advocate for the respondent No.2.

ORDER That the present petition is being filed by the petitioners under Section

482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing of the FIR dated 12.09.2022 bearing Crime No. 815/2022 registered at Police Station Dindori, and for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No. RCT-

969/2022 pending before JMFC, Dindori, District Dindori (M.P.).

2. As per the allegations made by Respondent No.2, the marriage between respondent No.2 and petitioner No.1 was solemnized on 25/09/2020 at Jabalpur and thereafter they resided together at Jabalpur; in the year 2021 the services of petitioner No.1 was transferred to Dindori and he allegedly assured that respondent No.2 would be brought there subsequently, however, in March 2022, respondent No.2 lodged a complaint at Police Station Vijay Nagar, District Jabalpur alleging desertion, physical and mental cruelty, abuse, denial of entry into the matrimonial home by petitioner Nos.2 and 3, and demand of a car and a fridge, pursuant to which Crime No. 815/2022 was registered for offences under Sections 498-A, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and a charge-sheet was filed in Criminal Case No. RCT-

969/2022, copies whereof are filed as Annexure A-1.

3. Counsel appearing for petitioners submitted that general allegations are made against petitioners by respondent No.2. No demand of dowry has ever been made by petitioners. Specific allegation regarding demand of dowry, place and time of harassment etc. has also not been made and only vague and general allegations are made. Counsel appearing for petitioners placed reliance on a judgment reported in 2020 LiveLaw (SC) 141 in case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. It is submitted that Apex Court in case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Ors. (supra) held that specific and distinct allegations were not made against appellants and no specific role was attributed to them in furtherance of general allegations are made against them. Allegations were general and omnibus. In said circumstances, Apex court has quashed the FIR. It is submitted that case of petitioners is also covered by judgment passed by Apex Court in the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sone & Ors. (supra). In these circumstances, Court may exercise it's inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C for quashing of proceedings against the petitioners in interest of justice and to stop abuse of process of Code.

4. Learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for Respondent No.2 opposed the petition and submitted that the allegations made in the FIR and the charge-sheet disclose commission of cognizable offences, and investigation has been conducted in accordance with law. It is submitted that enough material is available along with final charge-sheet to make out a case under Section 498-A of IPC against petitioners. it was further submitted that the disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that the petition deserves to be dismissed.Govt. Advocate appearing for State opposed the petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. It is submitted that enough material is available along with final charge-sheet to make out a case under Section 498-A of IPC against petitioners. In these circumstances, no interference is called for and petition may be dismissed.

5. Heard learned counsel for parties.

6. Considering the statements of the respondent No.2 in the FIR, it is clear that general allegations were made ag