Sudhanshu Soni vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

1 MCRC-52048-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
nd
ON THE 22 OF OCTOBER, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 52048 of 2018
CNR No.: MPHC010643902018
SUDHANSHU SONI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANR
Appearance:
Shri Arun Kumar Singh - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Yogesh Dhande - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
Shri Ram Narayan Shah - Advocate for the respondent No.2.
ORDER
The present petition has been filed by the petitioners who are husband,
mother-in-law & father-in-law of the respondent No.2 for quashing the FIR
at crime No.824/2018 registered at Police Station Kotwali District Rewa
under Section 498-A of IPC with the Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act,
1961.
02. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that
the petitioners are husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law of the
respondent No.2 and the FIR in question is nothing but a harassment tactics
against the present petitioners. It is argued that marriage between the parties
took place in the year 2009 but the respondent No.2 was quarrelsome and the
parties lived together continuously only upto 2014 and thereafter the parties
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAMOD
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 24-10-2026
2.37.28 PM

2 MCRC-52048-2018
lived together intermittently for certain periods. The respondent No.2 left of

on her own volition on 18.06.2018 by taking away all her belongings which
were given to her by her parents and even executed an affidavit but thereafter
the respondent No.2 lodged an FIR on 08.12.2018 before the Police
authorities. It is further argued that the present petitioner No.1 had filed a
divorce petition on 30.07.2018 against the respondent No.2 in which the
notices were issued on 30.07.2018 and as a counterblast to filing of divorce
petition, the FIR under Section 498-A of IPC has been filed against the
present petitioners.
03. It is stated that the divorce petition was subsequently withdrawn
by the petitioner No.1 looking to the possibility of compromise between the
parties but during the pendency of this petition in the year 2021 one more
event has occurred whereby the respondent No.2 filed a separate divorce
nd
petition before the II District Judge at Mauganj, District Rewa registered as
RCSHM 44/2020 on 15.10.2020, and the said Divorce petition has been
decreed on 15.11.2021 and the decree of divorce has been granted exparte in
favour of the respondent No.2.
04. It is therefore argued that not only the FIR was counterblast to
the petitioner No.1 filing divorce petition against the respondent No.2, but
during pendency of this petition, now even the divorce has taken place and
the said divorce decree dated 15.11.2021 has not been put to challenge by the
present petitioner No.1 and the divorce has become final between the parties.
He further argues that the parties have moved ahead in their lives and the
respondent No.2 has even remarried. Therefore, the FIR be quashed.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAMOD
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 24-10-2026
2.37.28 PM

3 MCRC-52048-2018
05. Per contra, counsel for the respondent No.2 has argued that the

divorce might have taken place between the parties but if any criminal
offences have been committed by the family members of the husband and the
husband himself during currency of marriage then only on the ground of
divorce, the FIR cannot be quashed. It is further argued that he does not have
any information that whether the respondent No.2 has remarried.
06. This Court has heard counsel for the rival parties at length,
perused the documents on record as well as the case diary.
07. It is not in dispute that marriage took place between the parties in
the year 2009 and no issue has been born out of the wedlock. The dispute
arose in the year 2018 and the respondent No.2 and the petitioner No.1 are
living away from each other undisputedly from the year 2018, though as per
the petitioners, the respondent No.2 lived continuously only upto the year
2014, and thereafter, intermittently. Be that as it may be.
08. However, it cannot be denied that the FIR under Section 498-A
of IPC was lodged after notices were issued in the divorce petition filed by
the petitioner No.1/husband and to some extent there is some truthfulness in
assertion of counsel for the petitioners that the FIR under Section 498-A and
Dowry Prohibition Act seems to be counterblast to the petitioner No.1 filing
a divorce petition.
09. The most important event is that during pendency of this petition,
the divorce has taken place between the parties. Though it was exparte
divorce decree at the instance of respondent No.2, but the petitioner No.1 has
not challenged the said decree till date. He has accepted the said decree and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAMOD
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 24-10-2026
2.37.28 PM

4 MCRC-52048-2018
the counsel for the petitioner No.1 categorically stated that the applicant No.1

does not intend to challenge the said decree and he has accepted the divorce
between the parties.
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kahkashan Kausar @
Sonam & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2022 SCC Online SC
162 has held as under:-
11. Before we delve into greater detail on the nature and content of allegations
made, it becomes pertinent to mention that incorporation of Section 498-AIPC 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 disaffection 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-AIPC as instruments to settle personal scores against
the husband and his relatives.
12. This Court in its judgment in Rajesh Sharma v. State of U.P. [Rajesh Sharma v.
State of U.P., (2018) 10 SCC 472 : (2019) 1 SCC (Cri) 301] , has observed : (SCC
pp. 478-79, para 14)
“14. Section 498-A was inserted in the statute with the laudable object
of punishing cruelty at the hands of husband or his relatives against a
wife particularly when such cruelty had potential to result in suicide or
murder of a woman as mentioned in the Statement of Objects and
Reasons of Act 46 of 1983. The expression “cruelty” in Section 498-A
covers conduct which may drive the woman to commit suicide or cause
grave injury (mental or physical) or danger to life or harassment with a
view to coerce her to meet unlawful demand. [ Explanation to Section
498-A.] It is a matter of serious concern that large number of cases
continue to be filed under Section 498-A alleging harassment of
married women. We have already referred to some of the statistics
from the Crime Records Bureau. This Court had earlier noticed the fact
that most of such complaints are filed in the heat of the moment over
trivial issues. Many of such complaints are not bona fide. At the time
of filing of the complaint, implications and consequences are not
visualised. At times such complaints lead to uncalled for harassment
not only to the accused but also to the complainant. Uncalled for arrest
may ruin the chances of settlement.”
13. Previously, in the landmark judgment of this Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of
Bihar [Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 449]
, it was also observed : (SCC p. 276, para 4)
“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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAMOD
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 24-10-2026
2.37.28 PM

5 MCRC-52048-2018
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.”
14. Further in Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand [Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand,
(2010) 7 SCC 667 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 473] , it has also been observed : (SCC pp.
676-77, paras 32-36)

“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 learned 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
tranquillity 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 visualised 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAMOD
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 24-10-2026
2.37.28 PM

6 MCRC-52048-2018
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 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.”


15. In Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P. [Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P., (2012) 10
SCC 741 : (2013) 1 SCC (Civ) 212 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 120] it was observed :
(SCC p. 749, para 21)
“21. It would be relevant at this stage to take note of an apt observation
of this Court recorded in G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad [G.V. Rao v.
L.H.V. Prasad, (2000) 3 SCC 693 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 733] wherein also
in a matrimonial dispute, this Court had held that the High Court
should have quashed the complaint arising out of a matrimonial dispute
wherein all family members had been roped into the matrimonial
litigation which was quashed and set aside. Their Lordships observed
therein with which we entirely agree that : (SCC p. 698, para 12)
‘12. … There has been an outburst of matrimonial dispute in
recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main
purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down
in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes
suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions
resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which elders of
the family are also involved with the result that those who
could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are
rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the
criminal case. There are many other reasons which need not
be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation
so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and
terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement
instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years
and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their
“young” days in chasing their cases in different courts.’
The view taken by the Judges in this matter was that the courts would
not encourage such disputes.”

16. Recently, in K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana [K. Subba Rao v. State of
Telangana, (2018) 14 SCC 452 : (2019) 1 SCC (Cri) 605] , it was also observed that
: (SCC p. 454, para 6)
“6. … The courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant
relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry
deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis
of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in
the crime are made out.”
17. The above mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this Court has at
numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of Section 498-AIPC and the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAMOD
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 24-10-2026
2.37.28 PM

7 MCRC-52048-2018
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. 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.


11. This Court has also considered the position that both the parties
have now divorced and they are stated to be living their independent lives,
though the factum of parties having remarried may be disputed. The
inevitability of separation has thus been accepted by both the sides. In such
scenario, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held continuation of criminal
proceedings against the family members of husband to serve no useful
purpose and to only serve prolongation of bitterness and counter productive
to the ends of justice. (See : Mangeram vs. State of M.P & Anr., 2025 INSC
962).
12. Therefore in the considered opinion of this Court, it is a fit case
where the FIR registered against the petitioners under Section 498-A,
Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 be quashed so also all the
consequential proceedings arising from the said FIR be also be
quashed. Accordingly, the said FIR and all the consequential proceedings
arising therefrom stand quashed. The petition stands allowed.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
PK

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAMOD
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 24-10-2026
2.37.28 PM