Madhya Pradesh High Court
Santosh Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:23550
1 MCRC-9398-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIMANSHU JOSHI
ON THE 12 th OF MARCH, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 9398 of 2025
SANTOSH SHARMA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sourabh Singh Thakur - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Chandra Shekhar Upadhyaya - Panel Lawyer for the State.
Shri Jafar Khan - Advocate for respondent No.2.
ORDER
The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 for quashing of F.IR registered in Crime No.128/2025 on 07.02.2025 at Police Station Motinagar, District Sagar (M.P) and also consequential proceeding thereto for an offences punishable under Sections 85, 296, 115(2), 351(3), 3(5) of B.N.S. and Section 3, and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. Facts of the case in short are that the complainant, Aditi Sharma lodged a report at Police Station Motinagar stating that she was married to the petitioner No.1, Santosh Sharma, on 18.04.2024 in accordance with Hindu Rites and Rituals. At the time of marriage, her father gave Rs.15,00,000/- in cash and approximately 10 tolas of gold as dowry. It is further alleged that after the marriage, she resided happily at her matrimonial home for about one month. Thereafter, her husband Santosh Sharma, mother-in-law Aruna Sharma, sister-in-law Adarshita Sharma and brother-in-law Nikhil Sharma allegedly began demanding an additional amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from her parents house. Upon her inability to fulfill the Signature Not Verified Signed by: PANKAJ NAGLE Signing time: 25-03-2026 10:40:00 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:23550 2 MCRC-9398-2025 demand, they allegedly subjected her to physical assault and harassment on a daily basis in connection with dowry demands. The complainant further stated that whenever her husband returned home on leave, he allegedly abused and assaulted her over trivial issues and ultimately drove her out of the matrimonial home. She then returned to her parental home on the occasion of Raksha Bandhan . Subsequently, her father arranged Rs.5,00,000/- and sent her back to her matrimonial home. It is further alleged that she was treated well for about one and a half months thereafter. However, subsequently, her husband, mother-in-law, and sister-in-law allegedly started pressuring her to arrange for the purchase of a flat in Delhi for them. On 02.10.2024, she was allegedly expelled from the matrimonial home and has since been residing at her parental house. It is further stated that her father contacted her in-laws and requested them to take her back. Thereafter, on 19.12.2024 at about 3:00 PM, her husband Santosh Sharma, along with her mother-in-law Aruna Sharma, sister-in-law Adarshita Sharma, and brother-in-law Nikhil Sharma, came to her parental house at Sagar and allegedly reiterated their demand for purchase of a flat in Delhi. Upon her refusal to fulfill the dowry demand, her husband allegedly assaulted her. On the basis of the said complaint, an FIR bearing Crime No.128/2025 dated 07.02.2025 has been registered at Police Station Motinagar, District Sagar (M.P.) for offences punishable under Sections 85, 296, 115(2), 351(3), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioners.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have been falsely implicated in this matter. They are innocent. He further submits that the petitioner No.2, who is mother-in-law of the complainant, has submitted a prior representation dated 31.12.2024 alleging harassment and abusive conduct on the part of the complainant (daughter-in-law). In the said representation, it has been Signature Not Verified Signed by: PANKAJ NAGLE Signing time: 25-03-2026 10:40:00 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:23550 3 MCRC-9398-2025 stated that her son, Santosh Sharma was married to the complainant on 18.04.2024 in accordance with Hindu Rites and Customs. It is further alleged that immediately after the marriage, the complainant started behaving in an aggressive and abusive manner towards her husband as well as petitioner No.2. It is specifically alleged that the complainant used to pick up quarrels on trivial issues on a daily basis and subjected the family members to mental harassment. The representation further states that the complainant had also extended threats to falsely implicate them in criminal cases and to defame the family, including threats to ruin their social reputation. It is further submitted that petitioner No.1 is employed as a Security Officer in Government service. On the alleged date of incident, i.e., 19.12.2024, he was not present at the alleged place of occurrence. On the contrary, he was on official duty in Delhi, performing Government VIP security duties. The presence of petitioner No.1 in Delhi on the said date is duly reflected in the Daily Diary/official records maintained by his department. It is further submitted that on the following day, i.e., 20.12.2024, he proceeded from New Delhi to Kota in connection with his official duties. Therefore, the allegations regarding his presence at the place of incident on 19.12.2024 are false and baseless, and the same are contradicted by official documentary evidence. It is further submitted that petitioner No. 2 is employed as a teacher at Government Primary School, Ruthiyai, District Guna (M.P.). On the alleged date of incident, i.e., 19.12.2024, she was present at her place of posting and was discharging her official duties throughout the day. The presence of petitioner No. 2 in the school on the said date is duly substantiated from the attendance register maintained by the school authorities, which clearly reflects her attendance for the entire working day.
Therefore, the allegation regarding her presence at the alleged place of incident on Signature Not Verified Signed by: PANKAJ NAGLE Signing time: 25-03-2026 10:40:00 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:23550 4 MCRC-9398-2025 19.12.2024 is incorrect and is contradicted by official documentary evidence. It is further submitted that petitioner No.1 had filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights against the complainant on 22.10.2024 before the District Court at Guna. In the said petition, it has been specifically averred that the complainant (Respondent No. 2 therein) has withdrawn from the society of petitioner No.1 without any reasonable cause and is not performing her marital obligations, despite sincere efforts made by petitioner No. 1 to resume cohabitation. The filing of the said petition prior to the lodging of the present FIR clearly reflects the bona-fide intention of petitioner No.1 to continue the matrimonial relationship and also indicates that the present complaint is an afterthought. It is further submitted that petitioner No.3, who is the sister-in- law of the complainant, is married to petitioner No.4, Nikhil Sharma since the year 2016. Ever since their marriage, both the petitioners i.e. 3 & 4 have been residing separately in District Gwalior (M.P.). It is further submitted that they are living independently and have no direct day-to-day involvement in the matrimonial affairs of the complainant and her husband (petitioner No.1). Hence, their implication in the present case is wholly false and appears to be made with an ulterior motive. Therefore, the FIR be quashed and present petition be allowed.
4. Learned Panel Lawyer for the State as well as counsel for the respondent No.2 opposed the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner and prays for dismissal of petition. It is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent No.2 that the complainant lodged a First Information Report on 07.02.2025 at Police Station Motinagar, District Sagar clearly narrating that after her marriage with petitioner No.1 on 18.04.2024, she was subjected to continuous harassment, physical and mental cruelty and dowry demands by her husband and in-laws. It was specifically alleged that the petitioners were pressurizing her to bring Signature Not Verified Signed by: PANKAJ NAGLE Signing time: 25-03-2026 10:40:00 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:23550 5 MCRC-9398-2025 Rs.5,00,000/-. The allegation of the petitioners that the FIR has been lodged with an intention to extort money is baseless and concocted. Mere allegations of false implication cannot be a ground for quashing the FIR, particularly when the complaint discloses specific instances of cruelty and dowry demand. The marriage between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 was solemnized as per Hindu Rites and Rituals. Hence, it is prayed that the present petition be dismissed with costs.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.
6. Perusal of the record of the case reveals that the marriage between the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 was solemnized on 18.04.2024. The FIR reveals that the behaviour of the petitioner - husband and their family members was cruel and aggressive. The respondent No.2 was subjected to physically and mentally by suing filthy language. Therefore, her life measurable and left the matrimonial home. It is alleged in the FIR that the petitioners used to demand five lakhs cash. It is further submitted that the FIR not only implicates the petitioner No.1/husband but also names other family members.
7. In the case of State of Haryana Vs. BhajanLal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 , the Supreme Court has laid down following principles for the exercise of the jurisdiction by the High Court in exercise of its powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash an FIR or charge sheet as well as criminal proceedings:-
"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases 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 formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power Signature Not Verified Signed by: PANKAJ NAGLE Signing time: 25-03-2026 10:40:00 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:23550 6 MCRC-9398-2025 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 FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) CrPC except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) CrPC.
(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) Cr.P.C.
(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.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (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."
8. Regarding initiation of the criminal proceedings against the husband and his family members after the divorce petition/restitution of conjugal rights is filed by the husband reference may also be had to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kamlesh Kalra Vs. Shilpika Kalr And Ors. reported in 2020 (4) JKJ 176 , the Supreme Court has held as under:-
"15. As regards, the finding recorded by the High Court in respect of complaint/FIR filed under Section 498A IPC, we are of the firm opinion that the same does not call for interference. In the facts of this case, it is clear that the FIR filed in this regard in 2015 was time barred, having been filed much more than three years after the separation of xxxx (husband) and xxxx (wife) and the filing of the divorce petition by the Signature Not Verified Signed by: PANKAJ NAGLE Signing time: 25-03-2026 10:40:00 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:23550 7 MCRC-9398-2025 husband, both in 2009. In the facts of the case, the reasons given by the High Court for quashing the proceedings under section 498A IPC are justified and do not call for interference by this Court."
9. Similarly, in the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in 2022 Legal Eagle (SC) 142 Criminal Appeal No.195/2022 (arising out of a SLP (Crl) No.6545/2020 dated 08.02.2022 the Supreme Court has dealt with the growing tendency in matrimonial disputes to lodge false FIR against the husband and his family members u/s.498-A of IPC to settle the personal scores against them, and it is held as under:-
"12. Before we delve into greater detail on the nature and content of allegations made, it becomes pertinent to mention that incorporation of Section 498-A of the IPC was aimed at preventing cruelty committed upon a woman by her husband and her in-laws, by facilitating rapid State intervention. However, it is equally true, that in recent times, matrimonial litigation in the country has also increased significantly and there is a greater is affection and friction surrounding the institution of marriage, now, more than ever. This has resulted in an increased tendency to employ provisions such as Section 498-A IPC as instruments to settle personal scores against the husband and his relatives."
10. The landmark judgment of this Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar Anr. (2014) 8 SCC 273 it was also observed:-
"4. There is a phenomenal increase in matrimonial disputes in recent years. The institution of marriage is greatly revered in this country. Section 498-AIPC was introduced with avowed object to combat the menace of harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband and his relatives. The fact that Section 498-AIPC is a cognizable and non-bailable offence has lent it a dubious place of pride amongst the provisions that are used as weapons rather than shield by disgruntled wives. The simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his relatives arrested under this provision. In quite a number of cases, bedridden grandfathers and grandmothers of the husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested."
11. Further in Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand & Anr. (2010) 7 SCC 667 it has also been observed:-
Signature Not Verified Signed by: PANKAJ NAGLE Signing time: 25-03-2026 10:40:00NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:23550 8 MCRC-9398-2025 "32. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under Section 498-AIPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations.
We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment is also a matter of serious concern.
33. The learned members of the Bar have enormous social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fibre of family life is not ruined or demolished. They must ensure that exaggerated versions of small incidents should not be reflected in the criminal complaints. Majority of the complaints are filed either on their advice or with their concurrence. The earned members of the Bar who belong to a noble profession must maintain its noble traditions and should treat every complaint under Section 498-A as a basic human problem and must make serious endeavour to help the parties in arriving at an amicable resolution of that human problem. They must discharge their duties to the best of their abilities to ensure that social fibre, peace and tranquility of the society remains intact. The members of the Bar should also ensure that one complaint should not lead to multiple cases.
34. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualized by the complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations.
35. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a Herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating the husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of the criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment of husband's close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complaint are required to be scrutinised with great care and circumspection.
36. Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony and bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter of common knowledge Signature Not Verified Signed by: PANKAJ NAGLE Signing time: 25-03-2026 10:40:00 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:23550 9 MCRC-9398-2025 that in cases filed by the complainant if the husband or the husband's relations had to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of an amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful."
12. The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this Court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of Section 498-A 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.
13. 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. It is undisputed fact that the marriage between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 was solemnized on 18.04.2024 as per Hindu Rites and Customs. The complainant has categorically mentioned a specific incident dated 12.10.2024 when she was assaulted and abused upon refusal to fulfill the illegal demands. The allegations are specific, detailed and disclose commission of cognizable offences under Sections 85, 296, 115(2), 351(3), 3(5) of B.N.S and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
14. When the facts of the case in hand are tested on anvil of the aforesaid facts, it is apparent that no specific allegation has been made against the petitioners No.2 to 4. It appears that the impugned FIR on which criminal proceedings have been maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on the family members and with a view to spite them due to private and personal grudge best known to the wife. It clearly appears that filing of criminal complaint is a Signature Not Verified Signed by: PANKAJ NAGLE Signing time: 25-03-2026 10:40:00 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:23550 10 MCRC-9398-2025 pressure tactic, having been employed by the complainant against the family members of the petitioner No.1/husband. It appears that the impugned FIR is nothing, but is a premeditation with an ulterior motive of respondent No.2 to pressurize her husband and his family members and to drag them in a criminal proceedings for their prosecution. Under these circumstances, prima facie , no case is made out against commission of alleged offence against petitioners No.2 to 4.
15. In the result, the petition filed on behalf of petitioners No.2 to 4 namely Aruna Sharma, Adarshita Sharma and Nikhil Sharma is allowed and the impugned FIR vide Crime No.128/2025 registered at Police Station Motinagar District - Sagar for offences punishable under Sections 85, 296, 115(2), 351(3), 3(5) of B.N.S. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act is hereby quashed. The trial against the petitioner No.1/ husband will continue.
16. With the aforesaid directions, the present petition is allowed in part with no order to costs.
(HIMANSHU JOSHI) JUDGE pn Signature Not Verified Signed by: PANKAJ NAGLE Signing time: 25-03-2026 10:40:00