1. By this petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioners seek quashment of FIR bearing Crime No. 60/2023 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, District Shivpuri, for offences punishable under Sections 498-A , 323 , 34 of IPC and Sections 3 / 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, along with all consequential proceedings.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant Smt. Vibha Chauhan, wife of petitioner No.1 Navindra Sikarwar, lodged a written complaint on 16.12.2023 alleging that her marriage was solemnized on 06.05.2017 according to Hindu rites and customs. It is alleged that despite sufficient dowry and household articles being given at the time of marriage as per the status of her father, the accused persons- husband, Signature Not Verified Signed by: VISHAL UPADHYAY Signing time: 2/13/2026 4:44:45 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5573 2 MCRC-4038-2024 father-in-law, mother-in-law and two brothers-in-law started taunting her for bringing insufficient dowry. It is specifically alleged that after she secured employment as Junior Engineer and was posted at Dholpur, she used to visit her matrimonial home at Gwalior during holidays, and whenever all accused persons assembled together, they subjected her to mental and physical cruelty on account of dowry demand. A specific incident dated 23.06.2023 has been narrated wherein, according to the complainant, all five accused persons collectively harassed her and petitioner No.1 allegedly assaulted her. It is further alleged that a demand of ₹25,00,000/- was made and she was told that she would be accepted in the matrimonial home only upon fulfilling the said demand.

On the basis of the complaint, the aforementioned FIR has been registered and investigation commenced.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits the allegations are false and motivated. The complainant and petitioner No.1 were living separately due to service postings; hence no occasion for harassment arose. Petitioners No.2 to 5 reside separately and have been falsely implicated with omnibus allegations. The FIR has been lodged belatedly with malafide intention. The complainant had extra-marital involvement, and upon confrontation, she threatened false implication. The guidelines laid down in the case of Rajesh Sharma v. State of U.P. , 2017 SCC OnLine SC 821 were not followed prior to registration of FIR. Reliance has been placed upon Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand , (2010) 7 SCC Signature Not Verified Signed by: VISHAL UPADHYAY Signing time: 2/13/2026 4:44:45 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5573 3 MCRC-4038-2024 667 and Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P. , (2013) 1 SCC 476.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent/State as well as counsel for the complainant/respondent No.2 vehemently opposed the prayer and prayed for its rejection.

5. Heard counsel for the rival parties and perused the entire material available on record with due care.

6. The legal position regarding quashing of FIR is no longer res integra. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal , 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Supreme Court enumerated illustrative categories where interference may be warranted. However, the Court cautioned that such power is to be exercised sparingly.

7. In Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra , (2021) 19 SCC 401, a three-Judge Bench authoritatively held that the High Court should not stall investigation or conduct a mini-trial while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Court reiterated that if the FIR discloses commission of cognizable offence, the investigation must proceed unhindered.

8. In Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander , (2012) 9 SCC 460, it has been held that at the stage of quashing, the Court is required to examine only whether uncontroverted allegations prima facie establish the offence; meticulous appreciation of evidence is impermissible.

9. Further, in Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar v. State of Maharashtra , (2019) 14 SCC 350, it was held that even if allegations appear Signature Not Verified Signed by: VISHAL UPADHYAY Signing time: 2/13/2026 4:44:45 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5573 4 MCRC-4038-2024 improbable, they cannot be quashed if they disclose the ingredients of the offence.

10. This Court finds that in this regard, the parameters are well defined:

11. Here in the present case, a careful reading of the FIR reveals that specific demand of ₹25,00,000/- is alleged. A particular date of physical assault i.e. 23.06.2023 is mentioned. Each accused has been named and assigned participation. Continuous taunts and cruelty have been alleged.

12. These averments, if taken at face value, satisfy the essential ingredients of Section 498-A which is cruelty in connection with unlawful demand of property, Section 323 of IPC which stands for voluntary causing hurt and Section 3 / 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. At this juncture, the Court cannot test the veracity of these allegations.

13. Further, this Court finds that the argument regarding separate residence and postings, deserves consideration.

14. In Arun Vyas v. Anita Vyas , (1999) 4 SCC 690, the Supreme Court held that cruelty under Section 498-A IPC is a continuing offence Signature Not Verified Signed by: VISHAL UPADHYAY Signing time: 2/13/2026 4:44:45 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5573 5 MCRC-4038-2024 and limitation would begin from the last act of cruelty. Similarly, in Rupali Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh , (2019) 5 SCC 384, the Apex Court held that the impact of cruelty continues even at the parental home and, therefore, courts at such place also have jurisdiction. Thus, even if parties were residing at different places due to service exigencies, that by itself does not negate allegations of cruelty, particularly when specific incidents at the matrimonial home are alleged.

15. The petitioners rely upon Preeti Gupta and Geeta Mehrotra (Supra) to contend false implication of relatives. But, in those cases, the Supreme Court found complete absence of specific allegations and mechanical implication of distant relatives. In the present case, however, the accused are immediate family members. Specific participation in the incident dated 23.06.2023 is also alleged and collective demand of ₹25,00,000/- is attributed. Therefore, it cannot be said that the FIR contains vague or bald allegations. Whether such allegations are ultimately proved is a matter of trial.

16. Further, learned counsel for the petitioners/accused argued the complainant was involved in some extramarital affaires, which itself discloses that there was some dispute running between the parties. Therefore, the defence built around alleged extra-marital involvement and pregnancy kit discovery is purely factual in nature. It requires evidence, cross-examination and trial.

17. In State of Tamil Nadu v. Thirukkural Perumal , (1995) 2 SCC Signature Not Verified Signed by: VISHAL UPADHYAY Signing time: 2/13/2026 4:44:45 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5573 6 MCRC-4038-2024 449, the Supreme Court held that defence material cannot ordinarily be considered at the stage of quashing. Similarly, in Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar (supra), it was reiterated that the accused cannot rely upon disputed defence to seek quashing. Therefore, this Court cannot embark upon an enquiry into alleged adultery at this preliminary stage.

18. The petitioners contend non-compliance of Rajesh Sharma (Supra) guidelines. However, the judgment in Rajesh Sharma was subsequently clarified and modified by the Supreme Court in Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar v. Union of India , (2018) 10 SCC 443, wherein it was held that no rigid pre-FIR scrutiny mechanism is mandatory and the statutory power of police to register FIR cannot be curtailed. Hence, the contention that FIR is vitiated for non-compliance of Rajesh Sharma guidelines is misconceived.

19. The further argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that there was delay in lodging the FIR. But, the complainant has explained delay on account of social stigma and attempts at reconciliation. In matrimonial matters, delay by itself is not fatal at the stage of investigation. This aspect can be tested during trial.

20. It is also pertinent to note that the offence of cruelty under Section 498-A IPC has been consistently held to be a continuing offence so long as the acts of cruelty and harassment persist. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arun Vyas v. Anita Vyas , (1999) 4 SCC 690, observed that cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A IPC is a Signature Not Verified Signed by: VISHAL UPADHYAY Signing time: 2/13/2026 4:44:45 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5573 7 MCRC-4038-2024 continuing offence and limitation would commence from the last act of cruelty. Similarly, in Suvetha v. State , (2009) 6 SCC 757, it was reiterated that matrimonial cruelty may consist of a series of acts spread over a period of time. Therefore, merely because the marriage was solemnized in the year 2017 or that certain acts are stated to have occurred earlier, the complaint cannot be discarded at the threshold on the ground of delay, if the allegations indicate continued harassment culminating prior to the lodging of FIR.

21. The contention that the petitioners were residing separately cannot, by itself, be a ground for quashing proceedings. The Supreme Court in K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana , (2018) 14 SCC 452, held that:

22. The offence under Section 498-A IPC is a continuing offence . The Supreme Court in Vanka Radhamanohari v. Vanka Venkata Reddy , (1993) 3 SCC 4, held that cruelty to a married woman is a continuing offence and limitation does not bar prosecution if cruelty continues.

23. Applying the settled principles of law to the facts of the present case, this Court finds that the FIR discloses cognizable offences. Specific allegations and overt acts are Signature Not Verified Signed by: VISHAL UPADHYAY Signing time: 2/13/2026 4:44:45 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5573 8 MCRC-4038-2024 mentioned. Ingredients of offences are prima facie satisfied. The grounds raised by petitioners pertain to defence and disputed facts. The case does not fall within the exceptional categories enumerated in Bhajan Lal (Supra) .

24. Exercise of inherent jurisdiction at this stage would amount to premature evaluation of evidence and stifling of legitimate prosecution, which is impermissible in law. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

25. It is clarified that observations made herein are only for the purpose of deciding this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and shall not influence the trial Court in any manner.

(RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA ) JUDGE Vishal Signature Not Verified Signed by: VISHAL UPADHYAY Signing time: 2/13/2026 4:44:45 PM