Madhya Pradesh High Court
Yogendra Singh Solanki vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 September, 2025
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:28188
1 MCRC-5415-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 5415 of 2014
YOGENDRA SINGH SOLANKI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
.............................................................................................................................
Appearance:
Shri Satyendra Kumar Vyas - Senior Advocate with Shri Amit Vyas -
Advocate for applicants.
Shri Bhuwan Gautam - Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1 / State.
Shri Amar Singh Rathore - Advocate for respondent No.2 / complainant.
.............................................................................................................................
Reserved on : 17/09/2025
Pronounced on : 25/09/2025
ORDER
Per: Justice Binod Kumar Dwivedi This petition has been filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter for short referred as, 'Code') for quashment of First Information Report (Annex.-P/5) dated 09/04/2013 registered at Crime No.115/2013 by Police Station Nagda, District Ujjain (M.P.) under Section Signature Not Verified Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 9/26/2025 12:42:19 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:28188 2 MCRC-5415-2014 498-A and 506/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter for short referred as, 'IPC') and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (hereinafter for short referred as, 'Act') and subsequent proceedings thereto.
2. It is not in dispute that marriage of complainant / respondent No.2
- Smt. Jyoti Solanki was solemnized with the applicant No.1 - Yogendra Singh Solanki on 23/01/2011 at Basant Palace, Nagda, District Ujjain.
3. Brief facts of the case as narrated in the impugned FIR (Annex.- P/5) are that after marriage complainant Smt. Jyoti Solanki lived in matrimonial house for about 28 days. From the second day of marriage her husband applicant No.1 - Yogendra Singh Solanki, her father-in-law applicant No.2 - Harisingh Solanki and mother-in-law applicant No.3 - Smt. Mankunwar Solanki started harassing her for dowry stating that her parents have given nothing in dowry. When she came to live with her husband at Hyderabad, where he was in service, all the applicants stated that they have to purchase expensive furniture, Television and Car and asked the complainant to bring Rs.5 Lakhs from her parents, but she refused to do so mentioning the poor economic condition of her parents.
4. She lived with the applicants for near about one month at Hyderabad and thereafter, he left her at Nagda. When she was residing with the applicants, they were harassing her picking up the quarrels on frivolous Signature Not Verified Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 9/26/2025 12:42:19 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:28188 3 MCRC-5415-2014 grounds and were also not providing her household goods necessary for day to day life. She used to narrate the instances of harassment to her parents. Her parents have tried to assuage the applicants and not to harass her, but they did not mend their ways.
5. On 03/04/2013, mother-in-law and father-in-law on account of non-fulfillment of their demand of dowry kept with them 60 grams of gold jewelry and expelled her from the matrimonial house threatening that she would not come back to matrimonial house without bringing Rs.5 Lakhs from her parents, otherwise she will be killed. After that she has called her relative Jeevansingh and narrated all the incident, who made arrangement to sent her to parents' house. Ultimately, these instances of the harassment were reported to the Police Station Nagda, District Ujjain, which resulted in registration of the impugned FIR against the applicants.
6. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the impugned FIR is lodged as a counterblast to the petition filed by the applicant No.1 under Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter for short referred as, 'HMA') for annulling the marriage of the complainant with the applicant No.1. Counsel further submits that the aforesaid petition was filed because marriage of the applicant No.1 with the complainant / respondent No.2 was solemnized on account of misrepresentation about her engineering Signature Not Verified Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 9/26/2025 12:42:19 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:28188 4 MCRC-5415-2014 educational qualification. Applicant No.1 is a talented Engineer working in private company situated at Hyderabad and he wish to marry a highly educated wife. Complaint's father, brother and brother-in-law approached the applicants with a proposal of marriage with Bio-Data of respondent holding out that she is having Diploma in Engineering, Hardware and Networking. This was found false as she has not cleared Diploma Course and when the applicant No.1 came to know about this misrepresentation he filed aforesaid petition for annulling the marriage of applicant No.1 with complainant.
7. Learned counsel further submits that after having knowledge of the aforesaid petition as a counterblast to that, this FIR has been lodged against the applicants on the false grounds. Even if all the allegations narrated in the FIR are taken as true, even then the applicants cannot be prosecuted for the alleged offences. It will be sheer abuse of process of law, if the prosecution is allowed to continue against the applicants. Learned counsel further submits that in judgment dated 05/10/2017 passed by the Additional Judge, Khachrod, District Ujjain in HMA Case No.17/2012, learned Court has concluded in its finding recorded in respect of issue No.4 that physical or mental cruelty by way of harassment on account of demand of dowry is not proved, which also falsifies case of the complainant. On these, miscellaneous submissions, learned counsel for the applicants urges to quash the FIR and subsequent Signature Not Verified Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 9/26/2025 12:42:19 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:28188 5 MCRC-5415-2014 proceedings thereto.
8. Per contra, leaned counsel for the respondent No.2 / complainant submits that finding recorded by the Court below on issue No.4 in HMA Case No.17/2012 instituted on the petition of the applicant No.1 are not binding on criminal Court as there are altogether different considerations to prove civil and criminal cases. He further submits that respondent wife has been deserted by the applicants on account of non-fulfillment of their demand of dowry. Ample evidence is available on record to prove the charges against the applicants. Roving inquiry is not required while exercising inherent powers of the Court given under Section 482 of Code. Ample evidence is available on record to prima-facie prove complicity of the applicants in the crimes alleged in the impugned FIR, therefore, learned counsel prays for dismissal of the petition as devoid of very substance.
9. Heard and considered the rival submissions raised on behalf of the parties and perused the record.
10. In catena of judgments, the Hon'ble Apex Court has given guidelines for justifiable use of powers given under Section 482 of Code for quashment of FIR and consequential proceedings. In para 102, in the case of State of Haryana and Others Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 the Apex Court has issued following guidelines for Signature Not Verified Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 9/26/2025 12:42:19 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:28188 6 MCRC-5415-2014 invoking the inherent powers, which are reproduced as under:-
"In the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the following categories of cases are given by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formuale and to given an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:
(1) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused;
(2) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. Do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code;
(3) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or 'complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused;
(4) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code;
(5) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;Signature Not Verified Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 9/26/2025 12:42:19 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:28188 7 MCRC-5415-2014 (6) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party;
(7) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."
The Supreme Court in para 27 in the case of Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460 has held as under:-
"27. Having discussed the scope of jurisdiction under these two provisions i.e. Section 397 and Section 482 of the Code and the fine line of jurisdictional distinction, now it will be appropriate for us to enlist the principles with reference to which the courts should exercise such jurisdiction. However, it is not only difficult but is inherently impossible to state with precision such principles. At best and upon objective analysis of various judgments of this Court, we are able to cull out some of the principles to be considered for proper exercise of jurisdiction, particularly, with regard to quashing of charge either in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 or Section 482 of the Code or together, as the case may be:
27.1 Though there are no limits of the powers of the Court under Section 482 of the Code but the more the power, the more due care and caution is to be exercised in invoking these powers. The power of quashing criminal proceedings, particularly, the charge framed in terms of Section 228 of the Code should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the Signature Not Verified Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 9/26/2025 12:42:19 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:28188
8 MCRC-5415-2014 rarest of rare cases.
27.2 The Court should apply the test as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made from the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith prima facie establish the offence or not. If the allegations are so patently absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person can ever reach such a conclusion and where the basic ingredients of a criminal offence are not satisfied then the Court may interfere.
27.3 The High Court should not unduly interfere. No meticulous examination of the evidence is needed for considering whether the case would end in conviction or not at the stage of framing of charge or quashing of charge.
27.4 Where the exercise of such power is absolutely essential to prevent patent miscarriage of justice and for correcting some grave error that might be committed by the subordinate courts even in such cases, the High Court should be loath to interfere, at the threshold, to throttle the prosecution in exercise of its inherent powers.
27.5 Where there is an express legal bar enacted in any of the provisions of the Code or any specific law in force to the very initiation or institution and continuance of such criminal proceedings, such a bar is intended to provide specific protection to an accused.
27.6 The Court has a duty to balance the freedom of a person and the right of the complainant or prosecution to investigate and prosecute the offender.
27.7 The process of the court cannot be permitted to be used for an oblique or ultimate/ulterior purpose. 27.8 Where the allegations made and as they appeared from the record and documents annexed therewith to predominantly give rise and constitute a "civil wrong"
with no "element of criminality" and does not satisfy the basic ingredients of a criminal offence, the court may be justified in quashing the charge. Even in such cases, the court would not embark upon the critical analysis of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 9/26/2025 12:42:19 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:28188 9 MCRC-5415-2014 evidence.
27.9 Another very significant caution that the courts have to observe is that it cannot examine the facts, evidence and materials on record to determine whether there is sufficient material on the basis of which the case would end in a conviction; the court is concerned primarily with the allegations taken as a whole whether they will constitute an offence and, if so, is it an abuse of the process of court leading to injustice. 27.10 It is neither necessary nor is the court called upon to hold a full-fledged enquiry or to appreciate evidence collected by the investigating agencies to find out whether it is a case of acquittal or conviction. 27.11 Where allegations give rise to a civil claim and also amount to an offence, merely because a civil claim is maintainable, does not mean that a criminal complaint cannot be maintained.
27.12 In exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 228 and/or under Section 482, the Court cannot take into consideration external materials given by an accused for reaching the conclusion that no offence was disclosed or that there was possibility of his acquittal. The Court has to consider the record and documents annexed therewith by the prosecution.
27.13 Quashing of a charge is an exception to the rule of continuous prosecution. Where the offence is even broadly satisfied, the Court should be more inclined to permit continuation of prosecution rather than its quashing at that initial stage. The Court is not expected to marshal the records with a view to decide admissibility and reliability of the documents or records but is an opinion formed prima facie.
27.14 Where the charge-sheet, report under Section 173(2) of the Code, suffers from fundamental legal defects, the Court may be well within its jurisdiction to frame a charge.
27.15 Coupled with any or all of the above, where the Signature Not Verified Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 9/26/2025 12:42:19 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:28188 10 MCRC-5415-2014 Court finds that it would amount to abuse of process of the Code or that the interest of justice favours, otherwise it may quash the charge. The power is to be exercised ex debito justitiae i.e. to do real and substantial justice for administration of which alone, the courts exist. 27.16 These are the principles which individually and preferably cumulatively (one or more) be taken into consideration as precepts to exercise of extraordinary and wide plenitude and jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code by the High Court. Where the factual foundation for an offence has been laid down, the courts should be reluctant and should not hasten to quash the proceedings even on the premise that one or two ingredients have not been stated or do not appear to be satisfied if there is substantial compliance with the requirements of the offence."
In the case of Supriya Jain Vs. State of Haryana & Anr. [SLP No.3662/2023, dated 04/07/2021], it has been held by the Apex Court that while exercising powers under Section 482 of the Code, the Court cannot take into consideration external materials given by an accused for reaching the conclusion that no offence was disclosed or that there was possibility of his acquittal. The Court has to consider the record and documents annexed therewith by the prosecution. The Court should apply the test as to whether uncontroverted allegations as made from the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith prima facie establish the offence or not. If the allegations are so patently absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person can even reach such a conclusion and where the basic Signature Not Verified Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 9/26/2025 12:42:19 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:28188 11 MCRC-5415-2014 ingredients of a criminal offence are not satisfied then the Court may interfere.
11. Thus, in light of the aforesaid judgments this Court will scrutinized, whether it is justified in the instant case to quash the FIR and subsequent proceedings by using inherent powers as prayed for by the applicants.
12. It is not in dispute in the instant case that marriage of applicant No.1 and complainant / respondent No.2 was solemnized on 23/01/2011. Applicant No.1 husband of the complainant has filed a petition under Section 12(1)(c) of the HMA on 28/02/2012 for annulment of marriage on the ground of fraud and suppression of material fact by the complainant for entering into the marriage. Complainant Jyoti had lodged a complaint against the applicants on 09/04/2013, which has resulted in registration of impugned FIR (Annex.- P/5) against them.
13. It has been contended on behalf of the applicants that after coming into knowledge of the fact that applicant No.1 has filed a petition under Section 12(1)(c) of the HMA for declaring his marriage with the complainant annulled and after filing reply to that petition on 28/06/2012 on behalf of the complainant, this FIR has been lodged on 09/04/2013 on false grounds as counterblast to that petition to pressurize the applicants. In the FIR (Annex.-P/5), the details of harassment on account of demand of dowry has Signature Not Verified Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 9/26/2025 12:42:19 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:28188 12 MCRC-5415-2014 been given and in support thereof during investigation statements of complainant and other witnesses have also been recorded. Applicants could not prove that marriage of the applicant No.1 was solemnized with the respondent No.2 / complainant merely because of misrepresentation / fraud with regard to technical education of the complainant.
14. Filing of petition for annulling the marriage on false grounds is cruelty in itself. From the evidence collected during investigation on record it is apparent that the applicant No.1 has left the complainant with her parents and she has not been taken back. Alleged complaint (Annex.-P/4) dated 10/10/2012 made by applicant No.2 to Station House Officer, Police Station Nagda, District Ujjain has also not been found in record as is proved by Annex.-P/7 written by SHO, Nagda to CSP, Nagda, wherein it is specifically mentioned that the alleged complaint has not been found in record. Thus, it is manifest that the false complaint (Annex.-P/4) is made by the applicant No.2, father of the applicant No.1 to support the applicant No.1.
15. Thus, it is apparent that the applicants remained hand in glove with each other to harass the complainant, therefore, the contention raised on behalf of the applicants that applicants No.2 and 3 have been falsely implicated in the impugned FIR being mother and father of the applicant No.1, is not acceptable. As far as finding on issue No.4 given by the Court below in Signature Not Verified Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 9/26/2025 12:42:19 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:28188 13 MCRC-5415-2014 HMA Case No.17/2012 cannot be taken as having any bearing to make prosecution case as false because civil and criminal cases are tried with different yard sticks to appreciate the evidence.
16. As far as lodging of FIR after filing of petition by the applicant No.1 under Section 12(1)(c) of HMA is concerned, it also in the facts and circumstances of the case does not give any leverage to the applicants. It is of common knowledge that in Indian culture, woman up to last makes every efforts to save her marital life. In the instant case, when the complainant / respondent came to know that applicant No.1 has ultimately decided to get rid of her by filing a petition to get declare their marriage null and void, she was compelled to file the impugned FIR. Thus, in the aforesaid backdrop mere filing of FIR, after applicant No.1 has filed a petition for annulling his marriage with the respondent, solely does not make a ground to presume that FIR is concocted just to circumvent the applicants.
17. As mentioned herein above, ample evidence is available on record to show that applicants have meted out cruelty to the complainant with regard to the demand of dowry. Hence, we are of the considered view that mere late filing of FIR cannot level the same as false complaint filed as counterblast to the petition filed by the applicant No.1, therefore, the contentions raised in this behalf also do not help the applicants. Signature Not Verified Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 9/26/2025 12:42:19 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:28188 14 MCRC-5415-2014
18. In the above factual matrix and in light of the guidelines given by the Apex Court in the cases of Bhajanlal; Supriya Jain and Amit Kapoor (Supra), we are of the considered view that no case for exercising inherent powers to quash the FIR and subsequent proceedings thereto is made out. Hence, this petition filed by the applicants having no force, fails and is hereby dismissed.
Certified copy as per rules.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE JUDGE
Tej
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TEJPRAKASH
VYAS
Signing time: 9/26/2025
12:42:19 PM