IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B. P. SHARMA

th

ON THE 18 OF MARCH, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 29637 of 2024 MOHD. ARIF AHMAD JAHAGIR KHAN Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Shri Anil Khare - Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Harjas Singh Chhabra -

Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Aatmaram Bain - Deputy Government Advocate for the State.

Shri Naveen Vaswani - Advocate for the complainant through video conferencing.

Reserved on : 12.02.2026 Pronounced on : 18.03.2026 ORDER By way of the present petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), the petitioner seeks quashment of the order dated 16.05.2024 (Annexure P/1) passed by learned XVIII Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur (M.P.) in Criminal Revision No.110/2024. The petitioner has also assailed the order framing charges dated 25.10.2023 (Annexure P/2) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur in RCT No.4466/2022 (State vs. Mohd. Arif Khan), whereby charges have been framed against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 498-

A, 494, 342, 323 and 506 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that complainant- , who is the first wife of the petitioner, lodged a report stating that her marriage with the petitioner was solemnized on 27.12.2002. It has been alleged that since she could not bear a child, the petitioner used to assault and defame her. It was further alleged that on 16.06.2022, at about 10–11 PM, the petitioner threatened her and stated that he would kill her by administering poison and also instigated her to commit suicide. The complainant further alleged that the petitioner had solemnized a second marriage with one on 29.05.2022 and asked her to give him “Khula”, i.e. "divorce" by mutual consent. On the basis of the written report, Crime No.49/2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 494, 342, 323 and 506 Part-II of IPC was registered against the petitioner at Mahila Police Station, Jabalpur and investigation was set into motion. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no case is made out against the petitioner. He has been falsely implicated. The allegations made are omnibus in nature and are ipse dixit in nature. It is argued that the marriage of petitioner with the complainant was solemnized on 27.12.2002; however, for almost 20 years since then; there was no complaint by the complainant against the petitioner. It is only when the petitioner solemnized second marriage, the complainant came up with a cooked story that she is being harassed for the past 20 years and petitioner inflicted cruelty upon her. The FIR stated only one occurrence and that the whole allegations if read on its face value, do not disclose any of the ingredients as mentioned in Section 498-A of IPC. It is further submitted that the question of implicating the petitioner under Section 494 of IPC does not arise as the petitioner is covered by Muslim Personal Law and as per the Personal Law, a Mohammedan may have as many as four wives at the same time, but not more. Thus, the question of implicating the petitioner under Section 494 of the IPC does not arise. Reliance is place on judgment in the case of Venu Gopal Vs. Union of India (2015) SCC online Kerala 798 in which, it has been held that the application of Section 494 of IPC would be applicable when a Muslim man marries a fifth time, it is then he can be prosecuted under Section 494 of IPC. So far as Section 323 of IPC is concerned, there is no visible injury opined in the MLC report; except for the bald statement that the petitioner held her hand and hit her, there is no material on record to ascertain the commission of the said offence. So far as offence Section 342 of IPC is concerne