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

th

ON THE 25 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 35142 of 2021 AJAY BHARTIYA AND OTHERS Versus THE STATE OF M.P AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Ashok Kumar Shah - Advocate for the petitioners. Smt. Pushpanjaly Dwivedi - Panel Lawyer for the State.

Shri Vivek Agrawal - Advocate respondent No.2.

ORDER The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR vide Crime No.733/2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 294, 323, 34 of the IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act registered at Police Station Budhar District Shahdol.

2. Facts of the case in short are that petitioners are permanent resident of District Dranbad |(Jharkhand) and reputed persons of the society. The petitioner No.1 is husband, whereas the petitioners No.2 & 3 are father-in- law and mother-in-law of the complainant. The allegations against the petitioners are that petitioner along with other co-accused persons were harassing the respondent no.2 for demand of dowery. They were also making pressure on the respondent to give the money deposited in the account of the daughter of the respondent no. 2 by her ex. Husband and on denial by her. They abused and assaulted her. The FIR has been lodged vide Crime No.733/2020 registered against petitioners and other accused persons for offences punishable under Section 498-A, 294, 323, 34 of the IPC and Section 3, 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. During pendency of present petition, the petitioner No.2 died on 13.02.2023 and his name was deleted from the array of petitioner vide order dated 22.10.2024.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner No.1 is a government employee, whereas the petitioner No.3 is an old lady aged about 69 years who is suffering from several old diseases. The complainant got married with the petitioner No.1 in the year 2019. Earlier she got married with one Vishal Gupta from whom she got divorced in the year of 2017 on the basis of mutual consent and huge amount had been recovered by the complainant from her earlier husband and the same tactics is applied by the complainant in the present case. The petitioners did not subject the complainant to cruelty for demand of dowery but with ulterior motive the allegations have been made by the complainant to recover a huge amount from the petitioners as the petitioners is having good reputation and strength in the society as she has earlier done with her previous husband, therefore, the FIR be quashed and present petition be allowed.

5. Learned Panel Lawyer for the State as well as counsel for the respondent No.2 opposed the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner and prays for dismissal of petition. It is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent No.2 that the complainant lodged a First Information Report on 10.10.2020 at Police Station Budhar, District Shahdol clearly narrating that after her marriage with petitioner No.1 Ajay Bhartiya on 17.04.2019 at Gayatri Mandir, Shahdol. She was subjected to continuous harassment, physical and mental cruelty and dowry demands by her husband and in-laws. It was specifically alleged that the petitioners were pressurizing her to withdraw the amount deposited by her previous husband in the name of her minor daughter and further demanded Rs.10,00,000/- and other articles from her parental home. The allegation of the petitioner that the FIR has been lodged with an intention to extort money is baseless and concocted. Mere allegations of false implication cannot be a ground for quashing the FIR, particularly when the complaint discloses specific instances of cruelty and dowry demand. The marriage between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 was solemnized as per Hindu rites and ceremonies at Gayatri: Shaktipeeth, Shahdol, and a marriage certificate was issued. Thereafter, both parties jointly applied for registration