IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE

th

ON THE 16 OF DECEMBER, 2025 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 32020 of 2023 DEEPAK SHARMA AND OTHERS Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Dilip Kumar Sharma - Advocate for the petitioners.

Ms Anjali Gyanani - Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.

ORDER The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed seeking quashment of FIR No. 333/2022 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana Padav, District Gwalior, for offences under Sections 498-A, 294, 506, 34 IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, along with a prayer for stay of trial proceedings in RCT No. 63/2023 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gwalior.

2. As per the prosecution case, the marriage between respondent No. 3 and petitioner No. 1 was solemnized on 25.04.2021. It is alleged that after a brief period of cordial relations, the petitioners began demanding a motorcycle as dowry and subjected the complainant to physical and mental cruelty. Several incidents of harassment, abuse, assault, and threats are alleged, culminating in the complainant being expelled from her matrimonial home and later assaulted again on 21.10.2022 at her maternal uncle’s residence. Following failed counseling proceedings at the Women Police Station, the impugned FIR was registered. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the marriage was solemnized without dowry and that the complainant herself left the matrimonial home on 09.03.2022 after Holi and thereafter refused to return despite repeated efforts by petitioner No. 1 and his family. It is alleged that the complainant threatened to falsely implicate the petitioners in a dowry case. Petitioner No. 1 approached the police authorities at Kailaras and later the Superintendent of Police, Morena, seeking restoration of cohabitation, demonstrating his bona fide intent.

4. It is further contended that during counseling proceedings held on

02.11.2022, both parties expressed willingness to cohabit; however, subsequently and malafidely, the complainant lodged the present FIR only after receiving summons in proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The FIR was lodged with an unexplained delay of more than one month from the alleged last incident dated 21.10.2022, and crucial independent witnesses, including the maternal uncle at whose house the incident allegedly occurred, were not examined under Section 161 CrPC. It is therefore submitted that the FIR is false, concocted, and an abuse of the process of law, instituted with an ulterior motive to harass the petitioners, and hence deserves to be quashed in the interest of justice.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the impugned FIR has been registered on the basis of a detailed complaint disclosing specific, clear and prima facie allegations of demand of dowry, physical and mental cruelty, abuse and criminal intimidation, attracting the offences under Sections 498-A, 294, 506, 34 IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The FIR narrates a continuing course of conduct by the petitioners after the marriage, including specific instances of harassment and assault, culminating in the incident dated 21.10.2022. At the stage of exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, this Court is not required to undertake a meticulous appreciation of evidence or adjudicate upon disputed questions of fact, which are matters for trial.

6. It is further submitted that the contentions raised by the petitioners regarding absence of dowry demand, alleged voluntary departure of the complainant from the matrimonial home, prior complaints made by petitioner No. 1, delay in lodging the FIR, and alleged malafides are all matters of defence, which cannot be examined in proceedings for quashment.

7. Learned counsel for the State submits that the FIR and the material collected during i