IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAF ON THE 11^th OF MARCH, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 12666 of 2025 LOKENDRA SINGH RATHORE AND OTHERS Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Baboo Ji Chourasia - Advocate for the petitioners.

Shri Jitendra Shrivastava – Panel Lawyer for the respondent no.1/State.

Shri Ashish Kumar Kurmi – Advocate for the respondent no.2.

ORDER

1. Petitioner No.1 Lokendra Rathore is the husband, Petitioner No.2 Om Prakash Rathore is the father-in-law and Petitioner No.3 Smt. Geeta Devi Rathore is the mother-in-law of the complainant/respondent No.2 Smt.

Shalini Rathore.

2. At the outset, counsel for the petitioners does not press the petition on behalf of the petitioner no.1 Lokendra Singh Rathore.

3. Consequently, the petition is dismissed qua petitioner no.1 Lokendra Rathore.

4. With the consent of parties, arguments heard for the purpose of final disposal.

5. The present petition has been preferred by petitioners under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 R/W section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashment of criminal proceedings arising out of FIR bearing Crime No.08/2025, registered at Police Station Nowgaon, District Chhatarpur for the offence punishable under Sections 85, 115(2), 296, 351(2), 3(5) of BNS, 2023 and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

6. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the husband and his family members have been implicated in the present matter only on the basis of the omnibus allegations and no sufficient evidence and allegations are available against the mother-in-law and father-in-law to put them on trial. He further submits that the plain reading of FIR and chargesheet papers indicate that the allegations levelled against the relatives of the husband are quite vague, general and no specific instance of criminal conduct has been stated in the FIR and no material is available in the chargesheet, which may attributed to them. He further submits that considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, allegations and evidence collected during investigation there is nothing on record to continue the criminal trial against the close relatives of the husband. He relied on the judgment of Apex Court delivered in the matter of Kahkashan Kausar Alias Sonam vs. State of Bihar and ors, reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599, wherein after considering the various judgments of the Apex Court it is observed that only on the basis of the general and omnibus allegations the close relatives of the husband cannot be put to trial. Paragraph Nos.17 to 22 of the judgment are relevant and read as under:-

“17. The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of section 498A IPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said judgments that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them.

18. Coming to the facts of this case, upon a perusal of the contents of the FIR dated 01.04.19, it is revealed that general allegations are levelled against the Appellants. The complainant alleged that ‘all accused harassed her mentally and threatened her of terminating her pregnancy’. Furthermore, no specific and distinct allegations have been made against either of the Appellants herein, i.e., none of the Appellants have been attributed any specific role in furtherance of the general allegations made against them. This simply leads to a situation wherein one fails to asc