The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that it is a general tendency of a victim of a crime to implicate all the family members of an accused in order to settle personal scores.

The Court pointed out that an “FIR is not an encyclopedia” and stated that a court is required to “look into a matter from the perspective of a reasonable man as to how he would have behaved or acted in the given circumstances.

As per the Court, the prosecutrix had only lodged an FIR against her husband and not his parents. There was no reference of the parents of the husband in the written complaint or the FIR as people who threatened the prosecutrix or connived at the offence committed by their son.

A Single Bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar observed, “Although it is mentioned in the written complaint that Nishit @ Mayur Bafna and the other person are responsible for the offence however, there is no reason for this Court to believe that the complainant/prosecutrix would miss the names of the present petitioners while lodging the FIR, especially when they are the father and mother of the main accused Nishit @ Mayur Bafna.

Advocate Jagdish Baheti represented the petitioners, while Advocate Ajay Raj Gupta appeared for the respondents.

The prosecutrix had made a statement that the petitioners, who were the parents of her husband, were also involved in the crime as they knew about the prosecutrix being raped and blackmailed but they kept mum.

During her court deposition, the prosecutrix stated that the parents of her husband had demanded money and jewellery from her. However, the prosecutrix had not named the parents of her husband in her statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., where it was stated that her husband used to come to take her jewellery.

The Court remarked that there was no incriminating material seized from the parents of her husband.

The Court held, “In such facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners appear to have been arraigned as accused only because they happen to be the father and mother of the main accused.

The Court added that merely because the prosecutrix had named the parents of the husband in her statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. and not in the FIR, the Court cannot assume that the petitioners were also involved in the present case.

The Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the parents of the Husband.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition.

Cause Title: Pradeep Bafna & Anr. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.


Petitioners: Advocate Jagdish Baheti

Respondents: Advocate Ajay Raj Gupta

Click here to read/download the Order