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. 1485 of 2023 BALRAM SODE AND OTHERS Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Ankur Shrivastava - Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Manisha Singh - Panel Lawyer for the State.

Shri Eshaan Datt - Advocate for respondent No.2.

ORDER The petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashment of the proceedings arising out of RCT No. 2548/2022, pending before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sagar, District Sagar, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

2. Facts of the case in short are that the petitioner No.1 got married to the respondent no.2/complainant on 01.12.20 at village Raipura, P.S. Surkhi District Sagar, as per Hindu Rites and Rituals. It is pertinent to mention here that no exchange of goods/dowry was made by either side, neither even single demand was placed by the petitioner No.1 or his family members. The petitioner No.2 is daughter of the elder brother of the Shobharam, therefore, she is niece of the petitioner No.1. The petitioner No.3 is the sister of the petitioner No.1. The petitioners No.4 and 5 are the son and daughter, respectively, of the petitioner No.3. Out of the wedlock of the petitioner No.1 and the respondent No.2, a girl was born on 07.12.21. The petitioners were very happy with the birth of the girl, but the respondent no.2 was still adamant to live in a nuclear family. After some time, the respondent No.2 left the house of petitioner No.1 and never come back to the house of petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner no.1 filed a case U/s 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, in the Family Court, Harda, being registered as HM Case No.219/21, on 22.12.2021. Notice was issued to the respondent No.2 for her appearance on 10.02.2022. The respondent No.2 after receiving the information of the application filed by the petitioner No.1, in place of appearing before the Family Court, made a false complaint to the Inspector General of Police, Sagar on 23.03.2022 against the petitioners and other relatives relating to demand of dowry and harassment.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent No. 2 herself wishes to reside separately and that the allegations levelled in the FIR are false, baseless, and devoid of any merit. It is further submitted that there is an inordinate and unexplained delay in lodging the FIR. According to the petitioners, respondent No. 2 had left the matrimonial home in March, 2021. Thereafter, on 22.12.2021, the husband filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking restitution of conjugal rights. Notice of the said petition was duly served upon respondent No. 2, directing her to appear before the concerned Court on 10.02.2022. Learned counsel contends that only after having knowledge of the said proceedings, respondent No. 2, as a counterblast and with an oblique motive to harass the petitioners and their family members, lodged the present FIR. Hence, it is prayed that the FIR be quashed.

4 . Per-contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 has filed a reply and supports the contentions raised therein as well as the allegations made in the FIR. It is vehemently submitted that the conduct of Petitioner No. 1 (husband) has been cruel, aggressive, and oppressive towards respondent No. 2. It is further submitted that other family members of the petitioner have also behaved rudely and in an unbecoming manner towards respondent No. 2. On these grounds, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 prays that the present petition be dismissed.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the documents available on record with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. Also consider the reply of the respondents and the documents filed at later stage.

6. Perusal of the record of the case