JAYESH SHRIWAS Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal under Sec. 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 is preferred by the appellants being crestfallen by the order dtd. 16/6/2025 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.19777 of 2025 whereby the petition preferred by the appellants seeking quashment of FIR registered at crime No.72/2023 at Police Station Mahila Thana Padav District Gwalior for offence under Ss. 498-A, 294, 506, 34 of IPC and Sec. 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and charge- sheet, has been dismissed.

(2.) Matter pertains to domestic dispute wherein the wife/complainant lodged the FIR against the appellants levelling the allegations of dowry demand and ill-treatment. Marriage of appellant No.1 and complainant has been solemnized on 19/11/2018 at Gwalior according to Hindu Rites and Rituals and in the marriage parents of complainant gave dowry according to their ability. In the present case, petitioner No.1 is husband, petitioner No.2 - father-in-law and petitioner No.3 is mother-in-law of the complainant/wife and as per the allegations, after marriage, petitioners started demanding dowry of Rs.5.00 lacs and one four wheeler and on non fulfillment of the said demand, they used to harass and beat her. On the complaint of respondent No.4/complainant, FIR was registered, case was investigated and thereafter charge-sheet was filed before the competent Court of jurisdiction. Petitioners preferred writ petition before learned Writ Court seeking quashment of FIR as well as charge-sheet but suffered adversely, therefore, they are before this Court.

(3.) It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that only on the basis of omnibus allegations petitioners are suffering criminal trial while petitioners had never raised the dowry demand. According to counsel for the petitioners no specific time, date and place have been mentioned by respondent No.4 for levelling the allegations of mental and physical harassment due to non fulfillment of demand of dowry and criminal intimidation. Thus, the allegations levelled by respondent No.4 appear to be vague and ambiguous and on the basis of such allegations, petitioners cannot be permitted to face trial.