IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR

th

ON THE 17 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 37294 of 2025 JAGDISH PARIHAR AND OTHERS Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Anurag Jain - Advocate for the petitioners.

Shri Sunit Kapoor - Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.

ORDER This petition is filed under Section 528 of The Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023/482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing of FIR pertaining to Crime No.378/2025 registered by the Police Station Industrial Area Ratlam, District – Ratlam for offence punishable under section(s) 352, 115(2), 296, 351(3) & 3(5) of BNS, 2023 and the charge sheet with all consequential proceedings thereto.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner in addition to the grounds mentioned in the petition, contended that there is matrimonial discard between Anita and her husband Mukesh (Respondent no.2). Mukesh had quarrel and assaulted Sandeep Parihar, Anita, Hemlatha and Hiralal at a marriage function in Radha Krishna Marriage Garden, District Ratlam in the afternoon of 16.05.2025. Police Station, Industrial Area, Ratlam registered FIR at crime No.377/2025 for offence under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(3), and 3(5) of BNS, 2023 against Ashish, Mukesh Bhatia, Rahul Bhatia, Dhiraj Ranbhabai and Chandabai. Thereafter,next day i.e. 17.05.2025, as a counter blast complainant Mukesh lodged the impugned FIR of the same incident against Jagdish Parihar, Sandeep Parihar, Vihesh Parihar, Malti Parihar, Govardhan Parihar and Kailash Parihar. The impugned FIR is malafide and lodged to pressurize the petitioners’ party. No offence, as alleged, is committed by the petitioner. The impugned FIR deserves to be quashed.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that the accusation in the impugned FIR are duly verified by independent witnesses Rakesh Katariya, BadrilalRaikwar and Rahul Bhatia as also by the medical examination report. Both the parties had assaulted each other in the same incident. Some delay in lodging the FIR is not sufficient reason to quash it.

4. Heard, rival contentions and perused the record.

5. Mukesh Bhatia reported to Police Station Industrial Area, Ratlam on 17.05.2025 that a day before i.e. on 16.05.2025, he went to Radhakrishna Marriage Garden to attend a family function. The cases regarding matrimonial dispute between him and his wife Anita, are pending at Court in Sailana. The relatives of his estranged wife Anita, namely Sandeep, Jagdish and Govardhanlal abused him using filthy language.They assaulted him with fist blows. Vishesh and Malti Parihar also abused and assaulted him. When his sister Chandabai intervened Jagdish Parihar assaulted her with fist blows. On such allegations, Police Station Industrial Area, Ratlam, registered FIR at Crime No.378/2025 for offence under Sections 352, 115(2), 296, 351(3), 3(5)

of BNS, 2023. The injured Mukesh and Chandabai were forwarded for medico-legal examination.The Medical Officer reported two simple injuries to Mukesh(1 linear contusion 7.00 cm x 0.5 cm, one abrasion 1.5 cm x 0.2 cm)and one contusion(10.00 cm x 5.00 cm) to Chandabai. The eyewitness of incident, namely, Prakash, Chandrakala, Rahul and Rakesh supported the accusation against the accused. The final report has been filedon conclusion of investigation.

6. The Supreme Court in case of State of Haryana vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal, reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 after an elaborate consideration of the matter and after referring to its various earlier decisions, has observed in para 108 as under:-

''108. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the