IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE WRIT PETITION No. 30425 of 2024 SHUBHAM SHRIVASTAVA AND OTHERS 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 V. S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the respondent [R-3].

Reserved on : 11.12.2025 Pronounced on : 14/01/2026 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 petitioners under Section

482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashment of the FIR registered by Respondent No.2 at the instance of Respondent No.3 for offences punishable under Sections 498-A/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) is working as Patwari at Tehsil Dabra and Petitioner No.1 (husband) is working as Forest Guard in District Dewas. Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.3 were married on 14.11.2021 at Bhopal according to Hindu rites and rituals. At the time of marriage, cash amount of Rs. 2,51,000/- and household articles worth about Rs. 3,00,000/- were given. For some time after marriage, everything went well, but thereafter the petitioners started harassing the complainant on the ground that she did not bring a motorcycle in dowry. The petitioners asked the complainant to bring her share from her father’s property. On 15.11.2022, when the complainant was at her father’s house at Gwalior, the petitioners entered into an argument with her and harassed her. On the basis of these allegations, after about one year and eight months, the FIR was lodged on 26/29.07.2024 against the present petitioners for offences under Sections 498-A/34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. It is submitted that the present petition has been filed for quashing of FIR (Annexure P-1) lodged by Respondent No.3 against the present petitioners, where Petitioner No.1 is the husband and Petitioner No.2 is the mother-in-law of the complainant. The FIR is false, motivated, and has been lodged only to harass and pressurize the petitioners. It is submitted that the last alleged incident is said to have taken place on 15.11.2022, whereas the FIR has been lodged in July 2024 after a delay of about one year and eight months, without any explanation. During this entire period, the complainant was residing at her father’s house, still no report was made, which clearly shows that the FIR is an afterthought. It is submitted that Petitioner No.1 had already filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights on 29.08.2023, in which notices were issued and the complainant appeared and filed her written statement on

06.07.2024. Immediately after filing of the written statement, the present FIR was lodged on 26/29.07.2024 only to create pressure upon the petitioners and therefore the FIR is clearly a counterblast to the matrimonial case. It is further submitted that the complainant has deliberately suppressed the fact of pending Section 9 petition in the FIR, which itself shows her mala fide intention. The allegations made in the FIR are general, vague, and omnibus in nature. No specific date, time, place, or particular role of any petitioner has been mentioned. It is submitted that Petitioner No.2 (mother-in-law) was living separately and the complainant never stayed with her for any considerable period. Even as per the FIR, no specific allegation is made against her, yet she has been falsely implicated. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has repeatedly held that Section 498-A IPC is often misused to falsely implicate the entire family, and the present case is a clear example of such misuse.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the FIR is clearly a