Neeraj Dahariya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:66419
1 MCRC-20536-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIMANSHU JOSHI
th
ON THE 24 OF AUGUST, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 20536 of 2026
NEERAJ DAHARIYA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Manhar Dixit - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Vijay Shukla - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey - Advocate for the respondent No.2.
ORDER
This petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 has been filed seeking quashment of FIR dated 06.02.2026
registered at Police Station Kevlari, District Seoni as Crime No.29/2026 for
offences punishable under Sections 85 and 115(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, and
the consequential proceedings.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the marriage between applicant
No.1 and respondent No.2 was solemnized four years ago from the date of
registration of FIR, according to Hindu rites and customs. According to the
FIR, for about one year the matrimonial relationship remained cordial, but
thereafter the husband and his family members started harassing the
complainant physically and mentally, using filthy language and making
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASTHA SEN
Signing time: 01-09-
2026 12:02:28

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:66419
2 MCRC-20536-2026
demands relating to dowry. On 06.02.2026, the complaint was lodged,

resulting in registration of the aforesaid crime against the applicants.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that all the applicants have
been falsely implicated and the FIR is an afterthought. It is submitted that
respondent No.2 has been living separately and that applicant No.1 had
already instituted proceedings under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act
for dissolution of marriage. According to learned counsel, the present FIR
was lodged after respondent No.2 received notice of the divorce proceedings
and is therefore a counterblast. It is further submitted that there was no
previous complaint regarding dowry demand or cruelty and that the
allegations against applicants No.2 to 4, namely Canchal Dahariya, Vijay
Dahariya and Janki Bai Dahariya, are general and omnibus, without
attribution of any specific overt act.
4. Learned counsel for respondent No.1/State and learned counsel for
respondent no.2 opposed the petition and submitted that the FIR discloses
specific allegations of physical and mental cruelty and dowry demand against
the applicants, which prima facie constitute the offences alleged. It was
contended that the defence of the applicant that the FIR is a counterblast to
the divorce proceedings initiated by him involves disputed questions of fact,
which cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 528 BNSS.
5. Heard the parties through their counsels and perused the material
available on record.
6. So far as applicant No.1-Neeraj Dahariya, the husband, is concerned, the
FIR contains direct allegations against him. The complainant has alleged that
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASTHA SEN
Signing time: 01-09-
2026 12:02:28

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:66419
3 MCRC-20536-2026
after about one year of marriage he participated in subjecting her to physical

and mental harassment and that there was a demand relating to dowry. The
allegations against the husband cannot, at this stage, be characterized as
wholly vague or inherently improbable. Whether such allegations are true
and whether they are supported by evidence are matters for trial.
7. The fact that applicant No.1 had instituted proceedings under Section 13
of the Hindu Marriage Act before registration of the present FIR may be a
circumstance available to him in his defence, but it does not, by itself,
establish that the allegations in the FIR are false. The question whether the
complaint was lodged as a counterblast involves disputed questions of fact
and cannot be conclusively determined in exercise of jurisdiction under
Section 528 BNSS. Consequently, no ground for quashing the proceedings
against applicant No.1 is made out.
8. However, the position of applicants No.2 to 4 stands on a different
footing. A careful reading of the FIR shows that allegations against them are
essentially collective and omnibus in nature. No specific date, particular
incident or distinct overt act has been attributed to applicant No.2-Can¬chal
Dahariya, applicant No.3-Vijay Dahariya or applicant No.4- Janki Bai
Dahariya. The allegations are principally directed towards matrimonial
harassment without disclosing the individual role of each of these relatives.
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in KahkashanKausar @ Sonam& Others
Vs. State of Bihar & Others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 162, after considering
the earlier decisions in Preeti Gupta & Another Vs. State of Jharkhand &
Another, (2010) 7 SCC 667 and Geeta Mehrotra & Another Vs. State of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASTHA SEN
Signing time: 01-09-
2026 12:02:28

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:66419
4 MCRC-20536-2026
Uttar Pradesh & Another, (2012) 10 SCC 741, has cautioned against

permitting prosecution of relatives of the husband on the basis of general and
omnibus allegations in matrimonial disputes. The Court observed that where
no specific and distinct role is attributed to the relatives and the allegations
are general in nature, continuation of prosecution against such relatives may
amount to abuse of the process of law.
10. Similarly, in Neelu Chopra & Another Vs. Bharti, (2009) 10 SCC 184 ,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that mere mention of the statutory
provisions is not sufficient and that the complaint must disclose the
particulars of the offence committed by each accused and the role played by
each of them. In Preeti Gupta (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court also
emphasized that allegations against relatives in matrimonial disputes are
required to be scrutinized with care and circumspection.
11. Applying the aforesaid principles, this Court finds that the allegations
against applicants No.2 to 4 do not disclose sufficient particulars to sustain
their prosecution. Their implication appears to be based upon their
relationship with the husband, coupled with general allegations of
harassment. The FIR does not disclose any specific act of demand of dowry,
assault, intimidation or other conduct attributable individually to these
applicants. Permitting the prosecution to continue against them merely on the
basis of such omnibus allegations would amount to subjecting them to the
rigours of criminal trial without a prima facie foundation.
12. The subsequent filing of the divorce proceedings by applicant No.1 also
provides the factual background in which the allegations have arisen. Though
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASTHA SEN
Signing time: 01-09-
2026 12:02:28

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:66419
5 MCRC-20536-2026
such circumstance is not sufficient to quash the prosecution against the

husband in view of the specific allegations against him, when considered
along with the absence of any specific allegation against applicants No.2 to
4, it assumes significance in determining whether their continued prosecution
would serve the ends of justice.
13. This Court is conscious that at the stage of quashing, the defence of the
accused ordinarily cannot be examined. However, where the allegations
appearing from the FIR itself, even if accepted in their entirety, fail to
disclose a specific prima facie case against particular accused persons,
interference under Section 528 BNSS is permissible. The present case,
insofar as applicants No.2 to 4 are concerned, falls within that limited
category.
14. Accordingly, the petition is partly allowed. The proceedings arising out
of Crime No. 29/2026 registered at Police Station Kevlari, District Seoni, for
offences under Sections 85 and 115(2) of the BNS and Sections 3 and 4 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, including the consequential charge-sheet
and criminal proceedings, are quashed qua applicants No.2-Canchal
Dahariya, No.3- Vijay Dahariya and No.4-Janki Bai Dahariya.
15. The petition, insofar as applicant No.1-Neeraj Dahariya is concerned, is
dismissed. The criminal proceedings against applicant No.1 shall continue in
accordance with law.
(HIMANSHU JOSHI)
JUDGE
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASTHA SEN
Signing time: 01-09-
2026 12:02:28

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:66419
6 MCRC-20536-2026
Prachi


Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASTHA SEN
Signing time: 01-09-
2026 12:02:28