Akhilesh Kumar Pandey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33355
1 MCRC-23599-2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA
th
ON THE 29 OF OCTOBER, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 23599 of 2020
CNR No.: MPHC030126292020
AKHILESH KUMAR PANDEY AND ANR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANR
Appearance:
Mr. Bhupendra Singh Dhakad - Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Satendra Singh Sikarwar - Govt. Advocate for respondent/State.
None for the respondent No. 2 even though served.
ORDER
The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for
quashing of FIR No.2/2020, registered at Police Station Mahila Thana,
District Gwalior, for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 506, and 34
of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, as well as all
consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant herself appeared at
the police station and submitted a written application addressed to the Station
House Officer (SHO), Women Police Station, Padav, District Gwalior
(M.P.), alleging physical and mental harassment as well as criminal
intimidation for demanding dowry. The complainant stated that her marriage
was solemnized on 07.04.2009 with Omkar Pandey S/o Shri Akhilesh
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: LOKENDRA JAIN
Signing time: 11/3/2026
3:46:19 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33355
2 MCRC-23599-2020
Pandey, at Arya Samaj Mandir, Uttam Nagar, East Delhi. At the time of

marriage, her parents presented gifts including a gold chain, a gold pendant,
gold ornaments, and a gold ring. After the marriage, she went to her
matrimonial home situated near Sikandarpur, Chhibramau, District Kannauj
(U.P.), where she was treated well for initial few days. Subsequently, her
husband Omkar Pandey, father-in-law Shri Akhilesh Pandey, and brother-in-
law Lokesh Pandey began subjecting her to physical and mental cruelty for
dowry. The accused persons taunted her stating that since the marriage was
performed at Arya Samaj, no dowry was received, whereas a marriage
elsewhere would have yielded substantial dowry. They demanded Rs.
12,00,000/- from her parents for purchasing a plot as a condition to let her
reside in the matrimonial home. Her parents fulfilled the said demand of Rs.
12,00,000/-, out of which a plot worth Rs. 7,00,000/- and a house worth Rs.
5,00,000/- were purchased, alongside a car. Despite fulfilling the demand,
the accused persons raised an additional dowry demand of Rs. 5,00,000/-,
asserting that the previous amount was insufficient for the plot. In the
interim, the complainant gave birth to two daughters, namely Nitya Pandey
(aged 7 years) and Kaira (aged 3 years). Following the birth of the female
children, the harassment intensified, with the accused expressing discontent
over not having a male child and depriving her of basic sustenance. When
the complainant protested, she was physically assaulted by the accused
persons, who threatened to continue the mistreatment unless the additional
demand of Rs. 5,00,000/- was met. Upon the complainant expressing her
father's financial inability to pay the amount, the accused physically
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: LOKENDRA JAIN
Signing time: 11/3/2026
3:46:19 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33355
3 MCRC-23599-2020
assaulted her and turned her along with her two minor daughters out of the

matrimonial home. The complainant returned to her parental home at Tansen
Nagar, Gwalior, and narrated the incident to her parents. Her parents
subsequently invited the in-laws to their residence at 33, Durgapuri, Tansen
Road, Gwalior, for resolution. During discussions, when her parents
expressed inability to pay the additional Rs. 5,00,000/- and requested them
with folded hands to accept their daughter, the accused persons reiterated
their dowry demand. Upon final refusal, her husband assaulted her, and the
accused persons abused her parents while threatening to kill the complainant
if she returned without the demanded amount. Accordingly, aforesaid Crime
was registered against the present petitioners.
3. It is submitted that the matrimonial dispute between husband and
respondent No. 2 (wife) has been amicably resolved, culminating in a decree
of mutual divorce dated 28.10.2022 passed by the learned Principal Judge,
Family Court, Gwalior in RCSHM No. 365 of 2022 (Smt. Priyanka Panday
vs. Omkar Panday). The rival parties have settled all their inter-se disputes,
are living separately, and have agreed not to pursue pending litigations
against each other.
4. It is submitted that the allegations leveled in the FIR regarding
dowry demand and harassment are omnibus, general, and exaggerated in
nature. The present petitioners have been falsely implicated in the crime due
to a personal matrimonial discord, which now stands completely settled
between the principal parties. It is forcefully contended that since the
underlying matrimonial dispute stands resolved by mutual consent and the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: LOKENDRA JAIN
Signing time: 11/3/2026
3:46:19 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33355
4 MCRC-23599-2020
parties have formally parted ways, no fruitful purpose would be served by

continuing the criminal prosecution. The chances of ultimate conviction are
bleak, and permitting the proceedings to continue would cause unnecessary
hardship to the parties. In view of the settled law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court regarding the quashing of non-compoundable criminal
proceedings arising out of matrimonial disputes upon mutual settlement, the
continuation of the proceedings under Crime No. 2/2020 would amount to a
gross abuse of the process of the court.
5. In such circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that FIR No. 2/2020 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, District
Gwalior for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 506, and 34 of the
IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, along with all
consequential proceedings arising therefrom, deserves to be quashed in the
interest of justice.
6. Per contra, learned Government Advocate appearing for the
respondent/State has opposed the prayer for quashing the FIR, submitting
that the allegations made against the petitioners in FIR No.2/2020 disclose
the commission of cognizable offences under Sections 498-A, 506, and 34 of
the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
7. It is submitted on behalf of the State that the offences alleged
involve acts of physical cruelty, mental harassment, and unlawful demands
for dowry, which constitute serious offences against society and marriage as
an institution. The mere fact that a decree of divorce has been granted by the
Family Court does not automatically erase or wipe out the criminal acts of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: LOKENDRA JAIN
Signing time: 11/3/2026
3:46:19 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33355
5 MCRC-23599-2020
harassment and cruelty previously committed against the complainant during

the subsistence of the marriage.
8. It is further submitted that the veracity and truthfulness of the
allegations, as well as the evidentiary value of the settlement claimed by the
petitioners, are matters of trial to be evaluated by the competent court after
recording evidence, and therefore, the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court
under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. ought not to be exercised to interdict the
trial at this stage.
9. However, learned Government Advocate fairly concedes that the
dispute essentially originates from a personal matrimonial discord between
the husband and wife-respondent No. 2 (complainant) has chosen not to
appear before this Court to contest the present petition despite due service of
notice.
10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused
the materials available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that
the present petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR
and consequential proceedings lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed.
11. It is a settled position of law that the inherent powers of this Court
under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. are to be exercised sparingly, with
circumspection, and only in exceptional cases to prevent abuse of the
process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. At the stage of
considering a plea for quashing an FIR, this Court is not required to
appreciate evidence or evaluate the defense of the accused, but only to
examine whether the allegations made in the complaint, taken at their face
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: LOKENDRA JAIN
Signing time: 11/3/2026
3:46:19 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33355
6 MCRC-23599-2020
value, disclose the commission of a cognizable offence.

12. In the present case, a perusal of the FIR reveals clear, specific, and
categorical allegations of continuous physical cruelty, mental harassment,
and persistent unlawful demands for dowry against the petitioners. The
complaint details specific instances of assault, threats to life, and expulsion
of the complainant along with her two minor daughters from her matrimonial
home. The mere fact that a decree of mutual divorce was subsequently
granted by the Family Court under civil proceedings does not automatically
wipe out or extinguish the criminal liability for acts of cruelty and dowry
harassment committed during the subsistence of the marriage.
13. Furthermore, the evidentiary value and effect of the alleged
settlement, as well as the contention that the allegations are general or
exaggerated, constitute disputed questions of fact that must be adjudicated by
the trial court upon appreciation of evidence. In the absence of an explicit
compromise application filed jointly by both parties before this Court
expressing no objection to the quashing of criminal proceedings, the
prosecution cannot be quashed at the threshold.
14. Consequently, finding no manifest illegality or abuse of the
process of law in the registration and prosecution of FIR No. 2/2020 at
Police Station Mahila Thana, District Gwalior, this Court declines to
exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
15. Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed. The trial court
is directed to proceed with the trial expeditiously and in accordance with
law, uninfluenced by any observations made in this order.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: LOKENDRA JAIN
Signing time: 11/3/2026
3:46:19 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33355
7 MCRC-23599-2020
16. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

(RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA )
JUDGE
(LJ*)

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: LOKENDRA JAIN
Signing time: 11/3/2026
3:46:19 PM