The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur has quashed criminal proceedings against the parents of a husband in a dowry harassment case, holding that the FIR and investigation material contained only general and omnibus allegations without attributing any specific role to them. However, the proceedings will continue against the husband.
Background of the Case
The case arose from Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 12666 of 2025 filed by Lokendra Singh Rathore (husband), Om Prakash Rathore (father-in-law), and Geeta Devi Rathore (mother-in-law) seeking quashing of criminal proceedings. The matter was heard by Justice Vinay Saraf of the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
The petition was filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 read with Section 482 CrPC, seeking quashing of FIR Crime No. 08/2025 registered at Police Station Nowgaon, District Chhatarpur.
The FIR invoked offences under Sections 85, 115(2), 296, 351(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
At the outset of the hearing, counsel for the petitioners stated that the petition was not being pressed on behalf of the husband, Lokendra Singh Rathore. The Court accordingly dismissed the petition with respect to him and proceeded to consider the case of the in-laws.
Allegations by the Complainant
According to the complainant, Smt. Shalini Rathore, the marriage with Lokendra Rathore was solemnized on 13 February 2024. Soon after the marriage, she alleged that the accused persons began harassing her and demanding dowry.
The complainant claimed that her parents had already given various items in dowry but the accused remained dissatisfied and demanded additional items including:
- a four-wheeler,
- an air conditioner,
- a two-tola gold chain,
- a ring, and
- ₹5 lakh in cash.
It was further alleged that she was abused and beaten in connection with these demands and eventually left the matrimonial home on 22 February 2024, after which she began residing with her parents.
Counsel for the complainant argued that the father-in-law and mother-in-law had actively participated in demanding dowry and harassing the complainant, and therefore the criminal proceedings should not be quashed.
Arguments of the Petitioners
Counsel for the petitioners argued that the parents of the husband had been implicated only through vague and omnibus allegations.
It was contended that:
- the FIR did not describe any specific instance of criminal conduct by the in-laws,
- the allegations were general in nature, and
- the charge-sheet also did not contain credible evidence showing their involvement.
The petitioners relied on several Supreme Court decisions, including Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar (2022) 6 SCC 599, where the Court cautioned against prosecuting relatives of the husband solely on the basis of generalized allegations in matrimonial disputes.
Court’s Analysis
After examining the FIR and the charge-sheet, the High Court observed that no specific role was attributed to the father-in-law and mother-in-law.
The Court noted that the statements recorded during investigation were largely a reproduction of the allegations made in the FIR, and the investigating officer had not collected material establishing their individual involvement.
The Court held:
“In the FIR bald and omnibus allegations have been levelled against the petitioners No.2 and 3 and from perusal of the chargesheet it appears that no credible evidence was collected by the Investigating Officer to prosecute close relatives of the husband.”
The Court further observed that in matrimonial disputes, complainants often implicate several members of the husband’s family without specific allegations.
The judgment stated:
“In the absence of any specific role attributed to the accused appellants, it would be unjust if the Appellants are forced to go through the tribulations of a trial.”
The Court relied on precedents such as:
- Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand (2010) 7 SCC 667,
- Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P. (2012) 10 SCC 741, and
- Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana (2024 SCC OnLine SC 759),
which emphasise that courts must exercise caution when relatives of the husband are implicated without specific allegations.
Decision of the Court
Justice Vinay Saraf concluded that forcing the father-in-law and mother-in-law to face trial in the absence of specific material would amount to abuse of the process of law.
The Court therefore quashed the FIR and all criminal proceedings against Om Prakash Rathore and Geeta Devi Rathore.
The Court ordered:
“FIR registered as Crime No.08/2025 at Police Station Nowgaon, District Chhatarpur is quashed qua petitioner No.2 Om Prakash Rathore and petitioner No.3 Smt. Geeta Devi Rathore.”
However, since the petition was not pressed on behalf of the husband, the Court clarified that criminal proceedings will continue against Lokendra Singh Rathore.
The petition was therefore allowed in part.
