IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIMANSHU JOSHI

th

ON THE 12 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 45380 of 2022 AMIT KUMAR GHARU AND OTHERS Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Ankur Shrivastava - Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Manisha Singh - PL for the respondent/State.

Shri Siddharth Shrivastava - Advocate for respondent No.2.

ORDER This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashment of the charge sheet dated 30.01.2022 and the proceedings in case No. RCT No.233 of 2022 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sagar, District Sagar (M.P.)

2. Facts of the case reveals that the Petitioner No.1 married Respondent No.2 on 22.04.2016 at Sagar as per Hindu rites and rituals. Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are the parents of Petitioner No.1. No dowry was ever demanded or exchanged at the time of marriage. After marriage, Respondent No.2 resided in the matrimonial home. However, disputes arose as she persistently insisted that Petitioner No.1 live separately from his aged parents. Petitioner No.1, being responsible for their care, expressed his inability to leave them. Due to this issue, matrimonial discord developed between the parties. A daughter was born out of the wedlock in 2018. The Petitioners were happy with the birth of the child. Despite this, Respondent No.2 continued to press for a separate residence and frequently stayed at her parental home. On 01.01.2022, Respondent No.2 left the matrimonial home and did not return. On 03.01.2022, a quarrel took place between the parties, after which Respondent No.2 left the house along with the minor daughter and her belongings. Apprehending false implication, Petitioner No.1 submitted a complaint to the police on 05.01.2022. Subsequently, on the complaint of Respondent No.2, FIR No. 06/2022 dated 15.01.2022 was registered against the Petitioners under Sections 498-A, 294, 323, 506, 34 IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The allegations made in the FIR are false, vague, and omnibus in nature. No specific role has been attributed to Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, who are elderly and suffering from ailments. The criminal proceedings have been initiated with mala fide intent to harass the Petitioners and to pressurize Petitioner No.1 to live separately from his parents. The continuation of the proceedings amounts to abuse of the process of law and deserves to be quashed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR dated

15.01.2022 is ex facie untenable and unsustainable in law, being founded on vague, omnibus and frivolous allegations. The same does not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence against the petitioners and is therefore liable to be quashed. The allegation of demand of dowry and harassment is wholly false and unsubstantiated. No such demand was ever made. The dispute, if any, arose out of Respondent No. 2’s insistence on residing separately from the family of Petitioner No. 1, which led to domestic discord. There is an unexplained delay of more than six years in lodging the complaint. No prior complaint or report was ever made during the subsistence of the marriage. Such inordinate and unexplained delay renders the allegations doubtful and motivated. It is submitted that the complaint and FIR contain material contradictions regarding the period and nature of alleged harassment, thereby creating serious doubt about the veracity of the prosecution case. He further submits that a bare perusal of the FIR reveals no specific or overt act attributed to Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3. They have been implicated merely because they are the parents of Petitioner No.1. The allegations against them are general and omnibus in nature and do not disclose their active involvement. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the alleged incident dated 03.01.2022 primarily pertains to a quarrel between Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2. Even as per the