S.482 CrPC Power Not to Be Used if Prima Facie Case Already Established in Co-Accused's Plea: Madhya Pradesh High Court - 2025-08-17

High Court Rejects Husband's Plea to Quash Dowry FIR, Cites Prior Ruling Against His Father

INDORE, MADHYA PRADESH – The Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed a petition filed by a husband seeking to quash a criminal FIR lodged by his wife, citing a previous order where the court had already found a prima facie case in the same matter against his co-accused father.

In a ruling that underscores the principle of judicial consistency, Hon’ble Shri Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla held that the submissions made by the petitioner, Nikhil Rastogi, could not be considered in light of the court's earlier detailed judgment concerning the same FIR.

---

Case Background

The case originates from a matrimonial dispute between Nikhil Rastogi and his wife (respondent no.2). The couple married in New Delhi in November 2017 and subsequently moved to the United States. Following a marital breakdown, the wife sent a legal notice in March 2022 seeking divorce and alimony. Mr. Rastogi then filed for divorce in a Delhi Family Court.

Shortly thereafter, the wife filed an FIR (No. 148/2022) at Vijay Nagar Police Station, Indore, against Mr. Rastogi and his father, Sunil Rastogi. The FIR alleged offenses under Sections 420 (Cheating), 406 (Criminal breach of trust), and 498-A (Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty) of the Indian Penal Code, along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

---

Arguments Before the Court

Petitioner's Arguments (Nikhil Rastogi): - Representing himself, Mr. Rastogi argued that a bare reading of the FIR does not establish the ingredients of the alleged offenses. - He contended that the FIR was lodged with misrepresented facts and as a retaliatory measure after he initiated divorce proceedings. - He claimed the allegations were primarily of a civil nature but had been given the "colour of a criminal case" and amounted to an abuse of the process of law.

Respondents' Arguments (State and Wife): - The counsel for the State and the wife presented a crucial counter-argument: the petitioner's father, Sunil Rastogi, had previously challenged the same FIR in a separate petition (M.Cr.C No.45474/2022). - In that case, the High Court had thoroughly examined the allegations and had explicitly found that a prima facie case was made out against both the father and the son (the current petitioner). - They emphasized that this prior order was never challenged and remains binding. Furthermore, a charge sheet has been filed, and Mr. Rastogi's application for discharge has already been rejected by the trial court.

---

Court's Reasoning and Key Observations

Justice Shukla's order was decisively influenced by the court's previous ruling in the co-accused father's case. The court reproduced Paragraph 27 of that judgment, which detailed the prima facie evidence:

"There is specific allegation of demand of dowry by the petitioner alongwith his son and also demand of money... An amount of 30,000/- US Dollar was paid... There is allegation that the petitioner demanded the respondent no.2 to obtain her share in the parental property... The property of Stree Dhan of the respondent no.2 was refused to be returned and was sold by them for their personal gains. The respondent no.2 was being harassed by her husband and family members. Thus, prima facie the ingredients of alleged offence are existing."

The court noted that while it has the inherent power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings to prevent abuse of process, this power must be exercised "rarely and sparingly." After an extensive review of numerous Supreme Court precedents on the scope of Section 482, the court concluded that interference was not warranted.

The judgment stated, "On the anvil of the aforesaid law, this Court has already examined the allegation of the present FIR and the criminal case when it decided the petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C filed by the father of the applicant."

---

Final Decision and Implications

Finding no new grounds for interference and bound by its previous detailed examination of the same FIR, the High Court dismissed Mr. Rastogi's petition. The court affirmed that since charges have been framed and the trial court has already considered the prima facie material, the criminal proceedings must continue.

This decision serves as a reminder that courts are reluctant to quash FIRs in pieces, especially when a coordinate bench has already applied its mind to the same set of facts and allegations involving a co-accused. It highlights that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not to be used for a meticulous examination of evidence, which is the function of the trial court.