While dismissing a husband’s quashing petition in a matrimonial matter, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that the criminal proceedings under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) cannot be quashed merely because the husband has filed an application under Muslim law for restitution of conjugal rights for judicial separation.

The High Court was considering a petition filed by the petitioners under Section 528 of the BNSS for quashing of the FIR and consequential criminal proceedings relating to a case registered under Sections 498-A and 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The Single Bench of Justice Pramod Kumar Agrawal held, “In the FIR, there is specific and clear allegations against the husband. So far as the submission made by the counsel for petitioners that FIR was lodged after filing the application under Section "Muslim law for restitution of conjugal rights". is concerned, the law is very clear. Merely because husband has filed an application "Muslim law for restitution of conjugal rights for judicial separation under the Muslim law, the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed. The filing of such an application does not constitute a ground for quashing the criminal proceedings.”

Advocate Vivek Kumar Pandey represented the Petitioner, while Deputy Government Advocate Ravindra Shukla represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The husband (first petitioner) was married to the second respondent wife and one child was born out of their wedlock. The petitioner claimed that a dispute arose between them as the respondent wife used to consume tobacco. According to the husband, when he asked her to stop consuming the same, she got annoyed and went to her parental home. It was also submitted that when the wife did not return to the matrimonial home, the petitioner filed an application under Muslim law for restitution of conjugal rights.

The Family Court directed the second respondent to live with the petitioner wife; however, despite the said order, she did not return to the matrimonial home. The husband had submitted an application before the Superintendent of Police and, thereafter, an order was passed, but the wife still did not return to live with the husband. The wife alleged that she was harassed by her husband and dowry demands were also raised, due to which she was compelled to leave her matrimonial home. According to the husband, the FIR in question was lodged as a counterblast, after an unexplained delay.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the husband had filed an application under Muslim law for restitution of conjugal rights and the wife lodged the FIR thereafter.

The Bench noted that in the matter at hand, it was not established that the FIR was lodged as a counterblast. No document was placed on record to establish that, before registering the FIR, notice of the proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights had been served on the second respondent, or that she had knowledge of the proceedings initiated by her husband. “Therefore, in the absence of any such material, it cannot be held that the FIR was lodged as a counterblast to the said proceedings”, it added.

The Bench further explained, “If wife maintains patience and silence with solitary intention to save her matrimonial life, then it cannot be said that it was her weakness. On the contrary, it shows her sincerity towards her marital life. If after realizing that her in-laws have gone to such an extent where reconciliation is not possible and then daughter-in-law decides to lodge an FIR complaining about cruelty meted out to her, then it cannot be said that the said FIR is a counterblast to the petition for judicial separation under the Muslim law.”

Considering that specific allegations were made against the husband regarding cruelty and demand of dowry, the Bench held that the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was made out against him and dismissed the petition as against him. The Bench also noticed that no specific allegation was made against the sisters-in-law and the mother-in-law. “The allegations levelled against them are vague, general and omnibus in nature. Consequently, the FIR and the all consequential proceedings in relation to Crime No.40/2024 registered against them at Police Station Nohta, District Damoh under Sections 498-A read with 34 of IPC and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act are hereby quashed”, it ordered.

Cause Title: A & Others v. The State of MP (Neutral Citation: 2026:MPHC-JBP:76288)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocate Vivek Kumar Pandey

Respondent: Deputy Government Advocate Ravindra Shukla, Advocates Mansoori Shakeel Ahmad

Click here to read/download Order



Madhya Pradesh High CourtJustice Pramod Kumar Agarwal

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.