IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR th ON THE 16 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 39973 of 2024 SMT. V. KRISHNAMMA AND OTHERS Versus GARIMA BAIS Appearance:

Shri A. Velan along with Shri Prakahar Shukla - Advocates for the petitioners.

Shri Sudhir Dandawate, Advocate for the respondent.

___________________________________________________________

Reserved on : 04/12/2025 Pronounced on : 16/02/2026 ___________________________________________________________

This petition having been heard and reserved for orders, coming on for pronouncement this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

1] This petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 528 BNSS, 2023 / 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the entire proceedings against the petitioners in case number MJCR 1860/2024 pending before the learned JMFC, Indore under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

2] This is the second round of hearing of this petition as this petition was earlier dismissed by the co-ordinate bench of this Court vide its order dated 10/12/2024, holding the same to not maintainable u/s.482 of Cr.P.C., however, the SLP (Crl.) No.9534/2025 preferred by the petitioners against the said order was allowed of by the Supreme Court by setting aside the order passed by this Court on 10.12.2024, and the matter has been remanded back to this court for its fresh consideration on merits.

3] The aforesaid application u/s.12 is filed by the respondent wife seeking the following reliefs:-

**01 ;g fd] izkFkhZuh dks vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 18 ds vuqlkj laj{k.k vkn's k iznku djrs gqos izfrizkFkhZx.k dks vknfs'kr fd;k tkos fd og izkFkhZuh ds lkFk ngts dh ekxa ,oa mldh iwfrZ ugh gkus s ds dkj.k 'kkjhfjd ,oa ekufld :i ls izrkfM+r ugh djs lkFk gh izfrizkFkhZx.k dks ;g Hkh vknfs'kr fd;k tkos fd og izkFkhZuh dks lw[kiow Zd fuokl djus ns ,o a mlds lkFk fdlh Hkh izdkj dh ?kjsyw fgalk dkfjr ugh djsA

02 izkFkhZuh dks vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 19 ¼1½¼p½ ds vuqlkj bUnkSj 'kgj eas fuokl ds fy;s vkuqdfYid okl dh lqfo/kk ;k mlds fy, :i;s 25]000@& ¼v{kjh :i;s iPphl gtkj½ izfrekg fdjk;s dk lank; djus laca/kh vkns'k iznku fd;k tkoAs izfrizkFkhZx.k dks ;g Hkh vknsf'kr fd;k tkos fd izkFkhZuh dks mlds csaxyq: ¼dukZVd½ fLFkr & ,&44] d`".kk fyxls h vikVZesaV] 14 dzkWl jkMs +] vkj-Vh- uxj] csaxyq: ¼dukZVd½ esa Hkh 'kkfari.w kZ

03 izkFkhZuh dks vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 20¼1½ ¼d½ ,oa ¼[k½ ds vuqlkj izkFkhZuh ds [kkuk] diM+k] nokb;Z kWa rFkk vU; ewyHkrw vko';drkvksa dh iwfrZ ds fy;s :i;s 2]00]000@& ¼v{kjh :i;s nks yk[k½ izfrekg ,oa vU; ?kjsyw [kpZ ds fy;s vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 20 ¼1½ ¼?k½ vuqlkj :i;s 2]00]000@& ¼v{kjh :i;s nks yk[k½ izfrekg izfrizkFkhZx.k ls fnyok;s tkoAs

04 izkFkhZuh dks vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 20 ¼1½ ¼x½ ds vuqlkj izkFkhZuh ds fu;a=.k ls izkFkhZuh ds L=h/ku dks gVkus ls izkFkhZuh dks gqbZ gkfu ds :i eas :i;s 70]00]000@&

¼v{kjh :i;s lRrj yk[k dos y½ izfrizkFkhZx.k ls izkFkhZuh dks fnyok;k tkoAs

05 izkFkhZuh dks vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 22 ds vuqlkj izkFkhZuh ds lkFk izfrizkFkhZx.k ds } kjk dkfjr dh xbZ ?kjsyw fgalk d s ifj.kkeLo:i izkFkhZuh dks gqbZ ekufld ,o a HkkoukRed {kfr ds :i esa :i;s 5]00]00]000@& ¼v{kjh :i;s ikWap djkMs + dos y½ izfrizkFkhZx.k ls fnyok;k tkosA

06 vU; lgk;rk tks Hkh ekuuh; U;k;ky; mfpr le>s fnyokbZ tkoAs **

(emphasis supplied)

4] In brief, the facts of the case are that the petitioners are the in-laws of Garima Bais W/o Shivkumar Govindraju Patel, as the petitioner no.1 is her mother-in-law, petitioner No.2, 4, 5, 7 and 9 are her brothers-in-law and petitioner No.3, 6 and 8 are sister-in-law.

5] Shivkumar’s marriage with the respondent Garima Bais was solemnised on 30/01/2020, at Bangalore as per Hindu rituals. According to the petitioners, soon after the marriage, the couple started residing separately, and also rented a flat in Bangalore at A-44, Krishna Legacy Apartment, 14^th Cross Road, Near BDA Complex, Opposite Corporation Bank ATM, R.T. Nagar, Bangalore as the respondent also registered her business on the sai