IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE WRIT PETITION No. 18237 of 2025 NAMAN SHARMA Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Sameer Kumar Shrivastava - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Samar Ghuraiya Dy Ga appearing on behalf of Advocate General.

Shri Anand Purohit, learned counsel for the respondent [R-3].

Reserved on : 11.12.2025 Pronounced on : 16/01/2026 This petition having been heard and reserved for orders, Hon’ble Shri Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke, Judge pronounced the following:

ORDER The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashment of the FIR and the charge sheet registered by Respondent No.2 at the instance of Respondent No.3 for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 294, 506, 34 of IPC read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. The prosecution case, as stated in the FIR, is that the complainant (Respondent No.3) was married to the petitioner according to Hindu rites and rituals. After marriage, the petitioner and his family members started harassing the complainant for bringing less dowry. Petitioner and other accused used to mentally and physically harass the complainant, abused her, and threatened her. On the basis of these allegations, Respondent No.2 registered an FIR against the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 294, 506, 34 of IPC read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. After investigation, the police have filed the charge sheet before the concerned Court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the FIR has been lodged with false, vague, and general allegations only with the intention to harass the petitioner. It is submitted that the FIR does not disclose any specific incident, date, time, or particular role of the petitioner. The allegations are general and omnibus in nature. It is submitted that no specific act of cruelty or demand of dowry has been clearly mentioned in the FIR or in the statements of witnesses. It is submitted that merely using general words like “harassment” and “torture” without mentioning any specific incident does not make out any offence under Section 498-A IPC or the Dowry Prohibition Act. It is further submitted that the FIR has been filed due to matrimonial differences and with an intention to pressurize the petitioner. It is submitted that even if the entire contents of the FIR and charge sheet are accepted as true, no offence is made out against the petitioner. It is submitted that the criminal proceedings have been initiated only to misuse the process of law and to harass the petitioner.

4. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on the basis of vague and omnibus allegations, no criminal prosecution can be allowed to continue. In the present case, the allegations made in the FIR are totally vague, general, and without any specific details. No date, time, place, or specific act has been mentioned. It is a settled principle of law that criminal law cannot be set into motion on the basis of such general and vague allegations. Allowing criminal proceedings to continue on such allegations would amount to abuse of the process of law. It is further argued that the basic ingredients of offences under Sections 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are not satisfied in the present case. It is a settled law that this Hon’ble Court, in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., can quash such proceedings to prevent abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice. Thus, it was submitted that the proceedings instituted against the present petitioner deserve to be quashed in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matters of Ramesh Kumar Vs State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2005 SCC (Crl.) 735; Preeti Gupta & Another vs. State of Jharkhand & Another reported in (2010) 3 SCC (Cri.) 473