PUNIT JAIN Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have filed the present petition under Sec. 528 of BNSS, 2023 for quashment of the FIR bearing No.198/2025 registered against the petitioners at Police Station Mahila Thana, District Bhopal under Ss. 85, 351(2), 3(5) of BNS and Ss. 3, 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and all consequential proceedings arising thereto.

(2.) As per the prosecution story, petitioners No.1 and 2 father-in-law and mother-in-law and petitioner No.3 is husband of the complainant/respondent No.2 - Disha Jain. According to the prosecution case, on 12/6/2025, respondent No.2/complainant lodged the report against petitioners alleging therein that she got married to petitioner No.3 on 4/1/2023 as per the Hindu Rites at Jaipur, Rajasthan. Father of complainant/respondent No.2 has given all household articles, jewellery and cash. At the time of marriage, her mother-in-law and father-in-law have demanded a sum of Rs.30.00 lac and jewellery of Rs.10.00 lac. At the time of engagement, her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law demanded Rs.10.00 lac which was given by the father of complainant to the petitioners. When complainant went to Japan with her husband then petitioners started torturing her and snatched all Stridhan and committed marpeet with her. They also threatened to kill her. Her husband in 2023 came to Bhopal twice and demanded Rs.50.00 lac from her father. Petitioner No.3/husband after consuming alcohol used to beat her. Due to threatening by her husband, complainant returned back to India. She tired her best to adjust in the petitioner's family but petitioner pressurized her either to give Rs.50.00 lac as dowry or to give divorce. Thereafter, the complainant filed the report. On the basis of which, Crime No.198/2025 was registered at Mahila Police Station, District Bhopal, against the petitioners.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the present crime. It is further submitted that soon after the marriage, parties shifted to Japan, but respondent No.2/complainant was not feeling happy with petitioners No.1 and 2 who were living with newly weds and started creating all kinds of ruckus and bickering on regular basis with her husband/petitioner No.3. She also compelled and coerced the petitioner No.3 to live separately in Japan and abandon his parents. It is further submitted that petitioner No.3 repeatedly asked to shift to Bhopal and live with her parents in in-laws as son-in-law but petitioner No.3 declined it. It is further submitted that intangible torture of respondent No.2 forced the petitioner No.3 to take medical therapy to save his life.