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

th

ON THE 27 OF JANUARY, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 57327 of 2023 SUKHCHAIN @ RAJ KATARE AND OTHERS Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Vinit Kumar Mishra - Advocate for the petitioners.

Ms. Mamta Mishra - Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1/State.

Shri Gurshish Kaur Bhatia - Advocate for the respondent No.2.

ORDER The petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the order dated 10/05/2023 (Annexure P/1) passed in Criminal Revision No. 03/2023 by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Lakhnadaun, District Seoni (M.P.), whereby the framing of charges for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A/34 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, as ordered by the trial Court, has been questioned.

2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that respondent No. 2/complainant lodged an oral complaint dated 10.10.2021 at Police Station Lakhnadaun, District Seoni, against the petitioners, namely her husband, brother-in-law (Jeth), father-in-law, and mother-in-law. As per the complaint, the marriage of the complainant was solemnized with petitioner No. 1 on 02.05.2019. It is alleged that for a few months after the marriage, the behaviour of the family members of petitioner No. 1 was cordial; however, with the passage of time, their behaviour allegedly changed. It has further been alleged that the petitioners started harassing the complainant on account of demand of dowry. As per the complaint, the complainant was subjected to torture on account of non-fulfilment of demand for a Bullet motorcycle, a gas stove, and a washing machine. It was further stated in the complaint that the complainant fell ill and left the matrimonial home on 12.06.2020. It was also alleged that she was compelled to reside at her parental home. The complainant was subjected to both physical and mental cruelty. Having no other efficacious remedy available, the respondent No.2 approached the competent authority for lodging an FIR against the petitioners. Upon completion of the investigation, Final Report No. 01/2021 was submitted before the concerned Court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the entire story put forth in the FIR is concocted and false. It was contended that no such incident ever took place and that the complaint has been lodged with mala fide intent in order to cover up the fault committed by the complainant herself. The first bone of contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioners is that petitioner No. 2, who is the jeth of the complainant, and petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 have been residing separately and have no common household with the complainant. It was further submitted that petitioner No.2 has been residing at Pisanhari Ki Mandiya, near Chhote Jain Mandir, at the house of Babbu Patel, Jabalpur. Educational documents in support of the said contention were also placed on record. The second submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the complaint leading to registration of the FIR on 10.10.2021 is nothing but a counterblast to the proceedings initiated by the petitioner prior to the said registration. It is submitted that petitioner No.1, on 09.06.2021, had submitted a written complaint to the concerned authority regarding the conduct of the complainant. Thereafter, petitioner No.1 instituted an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking restitution of conjugal rights before the competent Court. Notice of the said application was duly served upon the complainant on 14.08.2021. It was also contended on behalf of the petitioners that as per the complaint itself, the complainant had left the matrimonial home on 25/03/2020, whereas elsewhere in the complaint it is stated that she left the home on 12/06/2020. The FIR came to