IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH,

BENCH AT INDORE

M.Cr.C. No. /2022

PETITIONERS : 1. Vishal Tomar S/o Yashwant Tomar

Age: , Occupation: Pvt Service
Address: A102, Treasure Fantasy, CAT Road,
Surya Dev Nagar, Indore

2. Yashwant Tomar S/o Nandram Tomar

Age: , Occupation: Ret. Govt Servant
Address: A102, Treasure Fantasy, CAT Road,
Surya Dev Nagar, Indore

3. Manish Tomar S/o Yashwant Tomar. Age:

, Occupation: Pvt Service Address:

4. Gajra Tomar W/o Yashwant Tomar Age:

, Occupation: House Maker
Address: A102, Treasure Fantasy, CAT Road,
Surya Dev Nagar, Indore

Versus

RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Madhya Pradesh

through P. S. Kotwali Thana Mandsaur,
Indore (Madhya Pradesh)

2. Neha Tomar W/o Vishal Tomar

Age: 33, Occupation: Pvt Job (Bank)
Address: A102, Treasure Fantasy, CAT Road,
Surya Dev Nagar, Indore (M.P)
 PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE, 1973, FOR QUASHMENT OF FIR NO.370/2023
DATED 22/06/2023, REGISTERED BY POLICE STATION,
KOTWALI THANA, MANDSAUR, INDORE (M.P.)

It is humbly submitted by the petitioner as under:-

The present petition is filed u/s. 482 of the Cr.P.C., challenging the FIR No.
370/2023 dated 22/06/2023, registered by Police Station Kotwali Thana,
Mandsaur, Indore (M.P.). A Copy of FIR No. 370/2023 dated 22/06/2023
is filed and marked as Annexure – P/1.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:-

1. That, on 22/06/2023 the Respondent no. 2 lodged an FIR before the

Police Station and it was alleged in the said FIR that the husband of the
Respondent no. 2 who is the present petitioner along with the other family
members have committed cruelty with the Respondent no. 2 and it was
further alleged that the family of the petitioner demanded dowry at the time
of wedding on the basis of the written complaint the FIR 370/2023 was
registered on 22/06/2023 for offences U/s 354 (A) against the petitioner’s
husband and other family members of the petitioner and also charged u/s,
498 A, 323, 294, 34 of IPC, and section 3,4 of Dowry Prohibition Act
1961.

2. That, both the Petitioner (Husband) and the Respondent (Wife) has
filled an application of Mutual Divorce
the petitioner/ husband of the Respondent no. 2 himself has been a victim
of cruelty and desertion by the Respondent no. 2, he has submitted a
written complaint before PS Tejaji Nagar on 25/08/2021 regarding the
apprehension of false complaint against the family members of the
petitioner and thereafter the husband of Respondent no. 2 has also made
one another complaint dated 01/09/2021 of theft and breach of trust
against the Respondent no. 2 which was the significant reason of the
counterblast to the complaint made by her against the petitioner and
petitioners family. The Copy of the written Complaint dated 25/08/2021
and complaint dated 01/09/2021 by the husband of Respondent no. 2 is
filed and marked as Annexure P/2

3. That the petitioner preferred a divorce petition against the respondent

no.2, before the Ld. Family Court and in the said divorce petition notices
has been issued by the Hon’ble Principle Judge of the family court Indore.

4. That the respondent no.2 has lodged the said FIR against the
petitioners and his family. It is pertinent to mention here that the mother in
law of the respondent no.2 has merely resided with the respondent no. 2
for a period of 5 days that is from 25/01/2019 date of wedding to
29/01/2019 to because she left for Delhi on 30/01/2019 and thereafter on
01/02/2019 departed to Japan where in she was serving as Cultural
representative for yoga and Indian culture on behalf of Ministry of
external affairs Govt. of India. The Copy of the passport and immigration
and appointment letter of the petitioner is filed and marked as Annexure
P/3.

It is most humbly submitted that the mother in law of the respondent no.2
resided with her for a period of 5 days that is from 25/01/2019 date of
wedding to 29/01/2019 after that she left for Japan the offence under
section 498 A and 323 as well as 294 and 3, 4 of D.P. Act is wrongly
registered against the petitioners as she was not present in India on the
 time the duration of offence as mentioned in the FIR the offences
registered under IPC is reproduced as under:-

Section 498A Husband or relative of husband of a woman

subjecting her to cruelty.

[498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting

her to cruelty.—Whoever, being the husband or the relative of
the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be
punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to
three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.—For the
purpose of this section, “cruelty” means—

(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to

drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or
danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the
woman; or

(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a

view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any
unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on
account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet
such demand.]

As mentioned in the above mentioned paragraphs it is most humbly

submitted that no demand as to dowry or cash has ever been made by the
petitioners or their family members on the other hand always supported the
respondent no. 2 . The ingredients of the offences does not made out on
mere false statement of the respondent no.2 the aforesaid FIR has been
lodged.

5. That the Respondent no. 2 has made false allegation on the

petitioner’s father who is father in law of the complainant that he has done
gestures out raging the modesty of woman and also alleging sexual
harassment against her father in law the present petitioner it is pertinent to
mention here that the petitioner is an innocent person and has treated the
Respondent no.2 at the best of his capabilities. It is pertinent to mention
that Respondent no.2 and the the petitioner (her present husband) were
friend before marriage and on the recommendation of her present husband,
the father in law of the respondent no.2 gave her employment in his Firm,
thereafter the Respondent no.2 and the petitioner decided to get married to
each other.

6. It is further submitted that the Respondent no. 2 has stated that she
was subject to cruelty from the very next day of her marriage which is
26/01/2019, it is most humbly submitted that on the wish of the Respondent
no. 2/complainant, her husband on the expenses born by the petitioner’s
father, took her to the trip of New Zealand, it is a utter surprise that the
Respondent no. 2 was well enjoying the period which she has alleged the
duration of occurrence of offences against her. The copy of photographs
and boarding passes of complainant and her husband is filed and marked
as Annexure P/4

7. That the petitioners father has supported the Respondent no. 2 to start
her business which was named by her as SOSHA by Sonal Chawla, the
Respondent no. 2.The husband of petitioner has transferred money
amounting to more than 10,00,000/- INR in the account of the Respondent
no. 2 to support her financially and the said business were carried on the
property of the petitioner which was wilfully given to her by the husband of
petitioner. The Copy of the photographs of outlet of the business of the
Respondent no. 2 SOSHA by Sonal Chawla is filed and marked as
Annexure P/5

It is pertinent to mention here that the father in law of the Respondent no. 2
the present petitioner has financially aided her on several occasions by
providing place to start business and funded her business which shows the
bona-fide of the petitioners’ husband and the family of the petitioners on the
other hand the offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act are registered on
the demand of dowry , In the present case the petitioners have aided the
Respondent no. 2 and had never demanded anything in return , Section 3
and 4 Of the Dowry Prohibition Act is reproduced as under:-

3 Penalty for giving or taking dowry.—1

[(1) ] If any person, after the commencement of this Act, gives or

takes or abets the giving or taking of dowry, he shall be punishable
2[with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 3[five
years, and with fine which shall not be less than fifteen thousand
rupees or the amount of the value of such dowry, whichever is
more]: —1[(1)] If any person, after the commencement of this Act,
gives or takes or abets the giving or taking of dowry, he shall be
punishable 2[with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less
than 3[five years, and with fine which shall not be less than fifteen
thousand rupees or the amount of the value of such dowry,
whichever is more]\:" Provided that the Court may, for adequate
and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a
sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than 4[five years].] 5[(2)
Nothing in sub-section (1) shall apply to, or in relation to,— 1[(2)
Nothing in sub-section (1) shall apply to, or in relation to,—"

(a) presents which are given at the time of a marriage to the bride
(without any demand having been made in that behalf): Provided
that such presents are entered in a list maintained in accordance
with the rules made under this Act;

(b) presents which are given at the time of a marriage to the

bridegroom (without any demand having been made in that behalf):
Provided that such presents are entered in a list maintained in
accordance with the rules made under this Act: Provided further
that where such presents are made by or on behalf of the bride or
any person related to the bride, such presents are of a customary
nature and the value thereof is not excessive having regard to the
financial status of the person by whom, or on whose behalf, such
presents are given.]
 [4. Penalty for demanding dowry.—If any person demands, directly
or indirectly, from the parents or other relatives or guardian of a
bride or bridegroom, as the case may be, any dowry, he shall be
punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less
than six months, but which may extend to two years and with fine
which may extend to ten thousand rupees: 2[4. Penalty for
demanding dowry.—If any person demands, directly or indirectly,
from the parents or other relatives or guardian of a bride or
bridegroom, as the case may be, any dowry, he shall be punishable
with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six
months, but which may extend to two years and with fine which may
extend to ten thousand rupees\:" Provided that the court may, for
adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment,
impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six
months.]

[4A. Ban on advertisement.—If any person,— 1[4A. Ban on

advertisement.—If any person,—"

(a) offers, through any advertisement in any newspaper, periodical,

journal or through any other media, any share in his property or of
any money or both as a share in any business or other interest as
consideration for the marriage of his son or daughter or any other
relative;

(b) prints or publishes or circulates any advertisement referred to in

clause (a), he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term
which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to
five years, or with fine which may extend to fifteen thousand
rupees: Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special
reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a sentence of
imprisonment for a term of less than six months.]

In view of the above mentioned facts and submissions it is most humbly

submitted that the father in law of the Respondent no. 2 has financially
aided her on several occasions by providing place to start business and also
funded her business which shows the bona-fide of the petitioners and also
the made up story of the Respondent no. 2
 8. That the Respondent no. 2 was found taking money without consent
from her father in law the petitioner to which she made confessions to him
that she committed mistakes which cannot be ignored. She apologized to him
several times in the said confession, It is pertinent to mention here that the
father in law has also replied to the said confession in very appropriate
manner treating the Respondent no. 2 as a child. The Copy of the WhatsApp
Chats dated 04/05/2021 between the Respondent no. 2 and her father in law
is filed and marked as Annexure P/6.

In light of the above motioned para it is crystal clear that the Respondent no.
2 has made false and baseless statements in the FIR regarding allegations of
354 A against the husband of the petitioner who never misbehaved with the
respondent no.2.

9. That there is no ingredient of offence under 354 A of IPC against the

petitioner because the petitioner never asked her for any favors and on the
other hand there are documents to prove that the Respondent no. 2 has
committed various mistakes to which she apologized on text and there are
documents on record which shows that the story of the respondent no.2 is
cooked up story and after thought which has been portrayed when the
Respondent no. 2 moved complaint against her, for perusal of the court
section 354 A of IPC is reproduced as under:-

354-A. Sexual harassment and punishment for sexual harassment.—

(1) A man committing any of the following acts—
(i) physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and
explicit sexual overtures; or
(ii) a demand or request for sexual favours; or
(iii) showing pornography against the will of a woman; or
(iv) making sexually coloured remarks,
shall be guilty of the offence of sexual harassment.
From bare perusal of the language of the section it is clear that the offence
does not made out as the Respondent no. 2 on base of mere statements has
alleged the offence against the petitioner and her family member.

10. That in the FIR the allegation of beating the Respondent no. 2 has
been made it is pertinent to mention that the Respondent no. 2 at her will
left the house of the petitioner in the month of June which has been
mentioned in the FIR and now in the month of September after almost three
months lapse she is alleging that she was subject to physical cruelty which
is clearly a afterthought to drag the petitioners and their family into this
baseless case section 323 of IPC is reproduced as under

323. Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt. —Whoever, except in

the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one
thousand rupees, or with both.
Section 319 Hurt.—Whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity
to any person is said to cause hurt
It is most humbly submitted that the Respondent no. 2 at her will left the
house of the petitioner in the month of June and if any infirmity has been
caused by the petitioner has been on the body of the respondent no.2 for
three months shows that the complaint lodged by her is an afterthought

In light of the above mention facts it is most humbly submitted that the
offences under the dowry prohibition act is alleged with wrong intention to
drag the petitioners and their family, because the documents on record
shows that the Respondent no. 2 is a very cunning lady who has lodge the
present FIR at the lapse of almost two and a half years that too on
misleading facts. That the petitioner and the family of the petitioner never
demanded any facility from her on the other hand always supported her
financially and morally.

The chronology of facts , dates and events

Sr.N Date Event

o
1. 2016 The Respondent no. 2 and her husband (son of petitioner ) met
first.
2. 2017-2018 That the Respondent no. 2 made request to the petitioner’s son
for employment in the firm of petitioner .
3. 2018 The petitioner considering the recommendation made by his
son gave the Respondent no. 2, a Job at his firm .
4. 2018 The Respondent no. 2 and the son of petitioner decided to get
married to which the family of the Respondent no. 2,
pressurized the petitioner’s son to marry her daughter
5. 14/07/18 That the petitioner’s son and Respondent no. 2 got engaged
6. Aug 2018 Respondent no. 2 and her family pressurized the son of
petitioner and forced to decide the marriage date as early as
possible
7. 25/01/19 The Respondent no. 2 and the son of petitioner were married.
8. 30/01/19 The petitioners wife left for Tokyo, Japan on official duty .
9. 07/02/19 That the Respondent no. 2 and the son of petitioner went to
Honey Moon for 15 days to Newzealand
10 2020 Respondent no. 2 was caught stealing money without the
consent of the petitioner.
10 2019 -2021 The Respondent no. 2 was provided a place to start business
and was also funded by several transaction for running her
business SOSHA by Sonal Chawla.
11 2021 june The Respondent no. 2 left the place of the petitioner family
wilfully
12. Sept 2021 The Respondent no. 2 Lodged FIR against the petitioners
because the petitioners found her stealing things and made her
realize of her mistake

11. It is most humbly submitted that the Respondent no. 2 has taken the
said action in the counter of the complaint against her as she was found
stealing money at the home of the petitioners and as per the documents
on record it is clear that the family of the petitioner never demanded
anything in return the Respondent no. 2 on the other hand has dragged
the whole family in the false complaint.
12.That, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case State of Haryana Vs.
Bhajanlal and others reported in 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 has specifically
dealt with the circumstances in which the extra ordinary power vested
under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code can be exercised , in
para 102 it has been held as under:

102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the

various relevant provisions of the Code under
Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated
by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the
exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226
or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code
which we have extracted and reproduced above, we
give the following categories of cases by way of
illustration wherein such power could be exercised
either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or
otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may
not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly
defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible
guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an
exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such
power should be exercised.

(1) Where the allegations made in the first

information report or the complaint, even if they are
taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety
do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out
a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information

report and other materials, if any, accompanying the
FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying
an investigation by police officers under Section
156(1) of the Code except under an order of a
Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of
the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in

the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in
support of the same do not disclose the commission of
any offence and make out a case against the accused.
 (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not
constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a
non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted
by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as
contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or

complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable
on the basis of which no prudent person can ever
reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground
for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted

in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned
Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted)
to the institution and continuance of the proceedings
and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code
or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress
for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly

attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding
is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view
to spite him due to private and personal grudge.

In light of the above mentioned judgment it is clear that the allegations

made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken
at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute
any offence or make out a case against the accused.

13. That the Husband of the complainant and the petitioner has been
granted anticipatory bail Under section 438 of Cr.P.C by the Ld. A D J
Court Indore vide order dated 09/09/2021 the Copy of order dated
09/09/2021 is filed and marked as Annexure P/7.
14. That in the case of R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab [AIR 1960 SC 866 :
1960 Cri LJ 1239] the Court had summarized some of the categories of cases where
the inherent power under Section 482 of the Code could be exercised by the High
Court to quash criminal proceedings against the accused. These are:
(i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against
the institution or continuance of the proceedings e.g. want of
sanction;
(ii) where the allegations in the first information report or the
complaint taken at its face value and accepted in their
entirety do not constitute the offence alleged;
(iii) where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no
legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or
manifestly fails to prove the charge

15. That in the case Jeffrey J. Diermeier v. State of W.B., (2010) 6 SCC
243 the court has specifically envisages three circumstances under which
the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, the relevant para of the judgment
is reproduced as under
20. Before addressing the contentions advanced on behalf of the
parties, it will be useful to notice the scope and ambit of the
inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the
Code. The section itself envisages three circumstances under
which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely,

(i) to give effect to an order under the Code;

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court; and
(iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice.

Nevertheless, it is neither possible nor desirable to lay down any

inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of inherent
jurisdiction of the Court. Undoubtedly, the power possessed by
the High Court under the said provision is very wide but is not
unlimited. It has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and
cautiously, ex debitojustitiae to do real and substantial justice for
which alone the court exists. It needs little emphasis that the
inherent jurisdiction does not confer an arbitrary power on the
High Court to act according to whim or caprice. The power exists
to prevent abuse of authority and not to produce injustice.
16. That the Hon’ble High Court of MP Bench at Jabalpur in M. Cr. C
27336/2018, Smt Praveen Bano&OrsVs State of MP &Ors has quashed
FIR registered U/s 498 A, 506, 34 of the IPC and section 3, 4 of DP Act in
the similar circumstances where in the petitioner were residing separately
from the complainant the relevant para of the judgment is reproduced as
under :-
5. Having considered the contentions of learned counsel for the
parties and on perusal of the record, it is found that the address
given in the charge sheet and the documents filed by petitioners no.
1 to 8 in the form of Adhar Card, Ration Card, Samagra Family
Dash Board with regard to residing separately from petitioner no. 9
who is husband of respondent no. 2, are public documents and have
not been challenged by respondent no. 2, prima facie establishes the
fact that the petitioners no. 1 to 8 are residing separately from
petitioner no. 9 who is husband of respondent no. 2. There are
general allegations with regard to demand of dowry and harassment
against the petitioners and nothing has been disclosed on which
date or time and month by whom the alleged demand was made and
the manner by which she was subjected to cruelty and how she was
tortured and harassed. In the matrimonial dispute it is a general
tendency prevalent in the society to array close relatives of the
husband of the complainant with a view to take revenge. Therefore,
the allegations are extremely vague and omnibus and appear to be
leveled on account of fit of anger because of matrimonial
differences with petitioner no. 9 / husband.

6. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears

that the complainant has made allegations with ulterior motive
against petitioners no. 1 to 8 who are close relative of petitioner
no. 9 and if the proceedings of the aforesaid case are kept
continued it would amount misuse of process of law. Hence, the
petition is partly allowed and the FIR registered at Crime No.
171/18 for the offence u/Ss. 498-A, 506, 34 of the IPC and
section 3 / 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in Police Station
Panagar, District Jabalpur against petitioners no. 1 to 8 is hereby
quashed. However, it is made clear that the proceeding against
petitioner no. 9 who is husband of respondent no. 2 shall
continue in accordance with law.
 7. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned court below as
well as the concerning police authority for information and
compliance.

17. It is further submitted that the respondent no. 2 has dragged the
younger son of the present petitioner who is the brother in law of the
respondent No. 2 in spite of the fact that he was living separately from the
respondent no. 2 due to his studies and work which out if the state of MP
just to create unnecessary pressure his name was dragged.

18. That the wife of the petitioner and the younger son of the petitioner
has already filed a petition u/s 482 of Cr. P.C. bearing M.Cr.C
No.51014/2021 and M.Cr.C No.55980/2021 is pending for consideration
before this Hon’ble Court.
19. being aggrieved with the above mentioned action of the Respondent,
the petitioner has preferred the present application u/s 482 of Cr. P.C., and
the FIR deserves to be quashed on the following grounds as under:-

GROUNDS:-

1. Because, the present petitioner is an innocent person and has been

falsely implicated in the present case

2. Because, the respondent authority has deliberately failed to show the

involvement of the petitioners in the present crime.

3. Because, the respondent no.2 has also lodged the said FIR against the
petitioners and the family of petitioner, It is pertinent to mention here that
the mother in law of the respondent no.2 has merely resided with the
respondent no. 2 for a period of 5 days that is from 25/01/2019 date of
wedding to 29/01/2019 to because she left for Delhi on 30/01/2019 and
thereafter on 01/02/2019 departed to Japan where in she is currently serving
as Cultural representative for yoga and Indian culture on behalf of Ministry
of external affairs Govt. of India

4. It is most humbly submitted that the mother in law of the respondent

no.2 resided with her for a period of 5 days that is from 25/01/2019 date of
wedding to 29/01/2019 after that she left for Japan the offence under section
498 A and 323 as well as 294 and 3, 4 of D.P. Act is wrongly registered
against the petitioners as she was not present in India on the time the
duration of offence as mentioned in the FIR.

5. It is further submitted that the Respondent no. 2 has stated that she
was subject to cruelty from the very next day of her marriage which is
26/01/2019, it is most humbly submitted that on the wish of the Respondent
no. 2/complainant , her husband on the expenses born by her father in law
the present petitioner , took her to the trip of New Zealand, it is a utter
surprise that the Respondent no. 2 was well enjoying the period which she
has alleged the duration of occurrence of offences against her.

6. Because the Respondent no. 2 was found taking money without

consent from her father in law the present petitioner to which she made
confessions to him that she committed mistakes which cannot be ignored .
she apologized to him several times in the said confession, It is pertinent to
mention here that the father in law has also replied to the said confession in
very appropriate manner treating the Respondent no. 2 as a child.
7. That there is no ingredient of offence under 354 A of IPC against the
petitioner because the husband of the petitioner never asked her for any
favors and on the other hand there are documents to prove that the
Respondent no. 2 has committed various mistakes to which she apologized
on text and there are documents on record which shows that the story of
the respondent no.2 is cooked up story and after thought which has been
portrayed when the Respondent no. 2 moved complaint against her.

8. Because , the allegation relating to offence registered Under section

498 A Of the Indian Penal Code, there is no ingredient on record to state
that there was any act or move done by the present petitioners against the
respondent no. 2 by which the offence registered against the petitioners can
be derived.

9. Because the petitioner has supported the Respondent no. 2 to start

her business which was named by her as SOSHA by Sonal Chawla, the
Respondent no. 2.The petitioner has transferred money amounting to more
than 10,00,000/- INR in the account of the Respondent no. 2 to support her
financially and the said business were carried on the property of her father
in law, which was wilfully given to her by the husband of petitioner.

10. Because the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case State of Haryana Vs.
Bhajanlal and others reported in 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 has specifically
dealt with the circumstances in which the extra ordinary power vested
under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code can be exercised , in para
102 it has been held as under:
102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the
various relevant provisions of the Code under
Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated
by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the
exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226
or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code
which we have extracted and reproduced above, we
give the following categories of cases by way of
illustration wherein such power could be exercised
either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or
otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may
not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly
defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible
guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an
exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such
power should be exercised.

(7) Where the allegations made in the first

information report or the complaint, even if they are
taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety
do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out
a case against the accused.

(8) Where the allegations in the first information

report and other materials, if any, accompanying the
FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying
an investigation by police officers under Section
156(1) of the Code except under an order of a
Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of
the Code.

(9) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in

the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in
support of the same do not disclose the commission of
any offence and make out a case against the accused.

(10) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not

constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a
non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted
by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as
contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
 (11) Where the allegations made in the FIR or
complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable
on the basis of which no prudent person can ever
reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground
for proceeding against the accused.

(12) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted

in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned
Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted)
to the institution and continuance of the proceedings
and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code
or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress
for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly

attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding
is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view
to spite him due to private and personal grudge.

In light of the above mentioned judgment it is clear that the allegations

made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken
at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute
any offence or make out a case against the accused.

11. Because, the Hon’ble High Court of MP Bench at Jabalpur in M. Cr.

C 27336/2018, Smt Praveen Bano&OrsVs State of MP &Ors has quashed
FIR registered U/s 498 A, 506, 34 of the IPC and section 3, 4 of DP Act in
the similar circumstances where in the petitioner were residing separately
from the Respondent. No.2 .

12. That the petitioner be permitted to raise other grounds at the time of
hearing of this petition.
PRAYER
 It is, therefore, humbly prayed that the FIR No. 147/2021 dated
02/09/2021 registered by Police Station Mahila Thana, District Indore–
(M.P.) for may kindly be quashed for the present petitioner in the interest of
justice.
Place: Indore Submitted by
Dated: .09.2021
. Counsel for Petitioner
Information as per clause 7 of V.C. guidelines
Abhinav P. Dhanodkar
mob No. 9893259260
Email:apd.law@gmail.com
(MP/3277/2005)
 IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH,
BENCH AT INDORE

M.Cr.C. No. /2022

PETITIONERS : Anil Sharma S/o Late Shri Roshan Lal Sharma

Versus
RESPONDENTS : State of M.P. &Ors.
INDEX
S. Description of Documents Date Ann. Page No.
No.
1. Brief Praecipe & Chronology of dates &
events
2. Petition u/s 482 of the Criminal Procedure
Code, along with Affidavit
3. Application for Stay along with Affidavit.
4. List of Documents
5. Copy of FIR No. 147/2021 dated P/1
02/09/2021
6. Copy of the written Complaint dated P/2
25/08/2021 and complaint dated
01/09/2021 by the husband of Respondent
no. 2
7. Copy of the passport and immigration and P/3
appointment letter of the petitioner‘s wife.
8. Copy of photographs and boarding passes P/4
of complainant and her husband
9. The Copy of the photographs of outlet of P/5
the business of the Respondent no. 2
SOSHA by Sonal Chawla

10. Copy of the Whatsapp Chats dated P/6

04/05/2021 between the Respondent no. 2
and her father in law.
11 Copy of order dated 09/09/2021 for the P/7
anticipatory bail.
12. Power

Place: Indore Submitted by

Dated: . .2022
Counsel for Petitioner
Abhinav P. Dhanodkar

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH,

BENCH AT INDORE

M.Cr.C. No. /2022

PETITIONERS : Anil Sharma S/o Late Shri Roshan Lal Sharma

Versus

RESPONDENTS : State of M.P. &Ors.

LIST OF DOCUMENTS

S. Description of Documents Date Annexure Page No.

No. No. (if
any)

1. Copy of FIR No. 147/2021 dated P/1

02/09/2021
2. Copy of the written Complaint dated P/2
25/08/2021 and complaint dated
01/09/2021 by the husband of
Respondent no. 2
3. Copy of the passport and immigration P/3
and appointment letter of the petitioner
4. Copy of photographs and boarding P/4
passes of complainant and her husband
5. The Copy of the photographs of outlet P/5
of the business of the Respondent no. 2
SOSHA by Sonal Chawla

6. Copy of the Whatsapp Chats dated P/6

04/05/2021 between the Respondent
no. 2 and her father in law
7. Copy of order dated 09/09/2021 for the P/7
anticipatory bail.
Place: Indore Submitted by
Dated: .10.2022
. Counsel for Petitioner
Abhinav P. Dhanodkar
IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH,
BENCH AT INDORE

M.Cr.C. No. /2022

PETITIONERS : Anil Sharma S/o Late Shri Roshan Lal Sharma

Versus
RESPONDENTS : State of M.P. &Ors.
The chronology of dates and events
Sr.No Date Event
1. 2016 The Respondent no. 2 and her husband (son of petitioner no.1) met
first.
2. 2017-2018 That the Respondent no. 2 made request to the petitioner’s son for
employment in the firm of petitioner
3. 2018 The petitioner considering the recommendation made by his son
gave the Respondent no. 2, a Job at his firm .
4. 2018 The Respondent no. 2 and the son of petitioner decided to get
married to which the family of the Respondent no. 2, pressurized
the petitioner’s son to marry her daughter
5. 14/07/18 That the petitioner’s son and Respondent no. 2 got engaged
6. Aug 2018 Respondent no. 2 and her family pressurized the son of petitioner
and forced to decide the marriage date as early as possible
7. 25/01/19 The Respondent no. 2 and the son of petitioner were married.
8. 30/01/19 The petitioner’s wife left for Tokyo, Japan on official duty .
9. 07/02/19 That the Respondent no. 2 and the son of petitioner went to Honey
Moon for 15 days to Newzealand
10 2020 Respondent no. 2 was caught stealing money without the consent
of father of the petitioner.
10 2019 - The Respondent no. 2 was provided a place to start business and
2021 was also funded by several transaction for running her business
SOSHA by Sonal Chawla.
11 2021 june The Respondent no. 2 left the place of the petitioner wilfully
12. Sept 2021 The Respondent no. 2 Lodged FIR against the petitioners because
the petitioners found her stealing things and made her realize of
her mistake
Place: Indore Submitted by
Dated: .10.2021
 Counsel for Petitioner
Abhinav P. Dhanodkar .

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH,

BENCH AT INDORE

M.Cr.C. No. /2022

PETITIONERS : Anil Sharma S/o Late Shri Roshan Lal Sharma

Versus

RESPONDENTS : State of M.P. &Ors.

APPLICATION FOR STAY

It is humbly submitted on behalf of the petitioner as under:

1. That, present petition is filed u/s. 482 of Cr.P.C., challenging the FIR
No. 147/2021 registered by Police Station Mahila Thana , District Indore –
(M.P.). against petitioners.

2. That, as per the findings of the Hon’ble Court where in the petitioner
were residing separately from the complainant and the complainant has
lodged false FIR

3. That, as FIR is to be quashed, the continuance of any proceedings on

the basis of FIR, it will be harassment to the petitioner if the proceeding are
not stayed.

Prayer
It is, therefore, prayed that in the interest of justice any further investigation
of further proceedings on the basis of the FIR be stayed.

Place: Indore Submitted by

Dated: .10.2021
. Counsel for Petitioner
Information as per clause 7 of V.C. guidelines
Abhinav P. Dhanodkar
mob No. 9893259260
Email:apd.law@gmail.com
(MP/3277/2005)