IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA

th

ON THE 17 OF DECEMBER, 2025 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 51716 of 2022 MEENAKSHI (GUDIYA)

Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Ms. Arati Anuragi - Advocate for the petitioner.

Smt. Ankita Mathur - PP for the State.

ORDER This petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner seeking quashment of FIR bearing Crime No.260/2021 registered at Police Station Ambah District Morena for offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 506, 294, 34 and 323 of IPC and consequential proceedings arising out thereof.

2. According to prosecution case, the complainant Rama Sikwar alongwith her brother Kuldeep Singh Sikwar came to the police station on 02.04.2021 and lodged a report stating that her marriage was solemnized by her father according to Hindu rituals on 18.04.2014 Devkumar Vais. At the time of marriage, her father and brothers have given the dowry according to their means, including household goods, a refrigerator, a cooler and a washing machine, motorcycle (Bajaj Discover) and Rs.11 lakh in cash. After the marriage, complainant was lived her in-laws' house for about two years.

During that time, mother-in-law of complainant was saying at many a times that her father had arranged her marriage by misleading her father-in-law and father of complainant had not given them dowry according to their status. When I objected, then mother-in-law, sister-in-law and father-in-law of complainant gradually started harassing her. Thereafter, on 02.12.2016, in- laws including husband of complainant started to demand dowry from the complainant like four-wheeler which will increase their respect in society. When complainant denied, then all in-laws of complainant started harassing and beating her repeatedly over the issue of dowry. Thereafter, complainant told her mother about the dowry demand of her in-laws and father and brothers of complainant came to the house of her husband and said that they are not in position to fulfill their demand of four-wheeler and asked them not to harass the complainant.

3. During this period, complainant gave birth of two daughters. In-

laws of complainant have beaten her and threw her out of the house saying that they would not let me stay at home until complainant got her father and brothers to give them a four-wheeler and Rs.1 Lac in cash as dowry and they also threatened to kill the complainant if the demand of dowry has not been fulfilled by the complainant's family. On the aforesaid incident, an FIR was lodged against the petitioner.

4. It is further submitted by counsel for the petitioner that as per the FIR, there is no specific allegation against the petitioner. Omnibus allegation has been levelled against petitioner. This false FIR was lodged against the present petitioner just to harass her in-laws. It is further submitted that petitioner is a married woman and is sister-in-law of respondent No.2. At the time of incident, petitioner was at the house of her in-laws because she was pregnant and going to be delivered at child. Therefore, it is prayed that this petition may be allowed and FIR may be quashed, in the interest of justice.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. So far as the submission that due to non-fullfillment of demand of dowry, specific allegation of committing harassment and marpeet appears in FIR and trial is going on and charges have been framed, therefore, no question arises to interfere in the trial and at this time, when charges have been framed, quashment of FIR is clear cut violation of principal of natural justice.

7. Compelling a married woman to live in her parental home on account of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry by itself is a cruelty.

8. The Supreme Court in the case of Rupali Devi v. State of U.P., reported in (2019) 5 SCC 384 has held as under:-

“14. “Cruelty” which is the crux of the offence under Section 498- A IP