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

th

ON THE 12 OF JANUARY, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 29729 of 2025 SACHIN JYOTISHI AND OTHERS Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Aditya Vyas - Advocate for petitioner.

Shri Priyank Shandilya - Panel LAwyer for respondent/State.

Shri R. S. Jaiswal - Senior Advocate with Shri Rajmani Sharma -

Advocate for the respondent No.2.

ORDER With consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.

2. This petition, filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), has been preferred by the petitioners seeking quashment of the FIR dated 09.04.2025 and all subsequent proceedings arising out of Crime No. 147/2025, registered for offences under Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (corresponding to Section 498-A IPC) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, at Police Station Patan, District Jabalpur.

3. The facts of the case in brief are that the aforesaid FIR was lodged by the complainant/respondent No.2 whose marriage was solemnized with the petitioner No.1 on 17.04.2022 as per Hindu rites and rituals.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after the marriage, respondent No.2 resided with petitioner No.1 at Mandla until October 2022. Thereafter, she returned to her parental home and has been residing with her parents at Patan, District Jabalpur, since then. A legal notice dated 18.12.2024 seeking dissolution of marriage was served upon respondent No.2 on 27.12.2024. Prior thereto, on 29.11.2024, petitioner No.1 had filed an application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking divorce, in which notice was duly served upon respondent No.2; however, she failed to appear before the Family Court. Consequently, the Family Court passed a decree of divorce in favour of petitioner No.1 vide judgment and decree dated 08.02.2025 in RCSHM No.110/2024.

5. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that, as is evident from the contents of the FIR dated 09.04.2025, only omnibus and vague allegations have been levelled against petitioner No.1, his mother (petitioner No.2), and his sister (petitioner No.3). It is further submitted that petitioner No.3 is a primary school teacher posted at Katni and has been unnecessarily roped into the case. It is contended that a bare perusal of the FIR reveals that although the alleged incidents are stated to have occurred between 01.08.2022 and 28.11.2024, the FIR has been lodged only on 09.04.2025, resulting in an inordinate and unexplained delay of more than three and a half months. The FIR, therefore, has been lodged in a highly belated and mala fide manner, solely with the intent to falsely implicate the petitioners on baseless allegations of demand of dowry to the tune of Rs.10 lakhs and a four-

wheeler from the parents of respondent No.2.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further drawn the attention of this Court to the judgment dated 08.02.2025 passed by the Family Court, Mandla, whereby a decree of divorce was granted in favour of petitioner No.1. Subsequently, respondent No.2/wife filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC on 06.03.2025, which was also dismissed by the Family Court, Mandla vide order dated 15.05.2025 passed in MJC No.01/2025. It is submitted that only thereafter, and as a counterblast to the said proceedings, the respondent No.2 has lodged the present false complaint after a considerable lapse of time. It is further submitted that the Family Court, in its judgment, has categorically held that respondent No.2/wife had abandoned petitioner No.1/husband without any justifiable reason for the last two years and that she had also subjected him to cruelty. It is also undisputed that even prior to the passing of the divorce decree, respondent No.2 had been residing separately since the year 2022. The FIR is manifestly attended with mala fides and is a counterblast, having been registered without due process of law. In view of