Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shantanu Agrawal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 July, 2025
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:16870
1 MCRC-30843-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR
ON THE 7 th OF JULY, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 30843 of 2023
SHANTANU AGRAWAL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri. Zafar Raza - Advocate along with Shri Dharmendra Keharwar - Advocate for
the petitioner.
Shri Amit Rawat - GA for the State.
Shri Piyush Dubey - Advocate for respondent no. 2.
WITH
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 26110 of 2023
MRS. RADHIKA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri. Padmanabh Saxena- Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Amit Rawat - GA for the State.
Shri Piyush Dubey - Advocate for respondent no. 2.
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 46068 of 2023
SWADESH KUMAR AGRAWAL AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri. Dharmendra Keharwar - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Amit Rawat - GA for the State.
Shri Piyush Dubey - Advocate for respondent no. 2.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 07-07-2025
19:30:28
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:16870
2 MCRC-30843-2023
ORDER
All these three petitions relate to quashing of FIR at Crime
No.72/2023 registered at Police Station Women Cell, District Indore
Urban, therefore, they are heard together.
2. The exposition of the facts giving rise to these petitions, in brief,
is as under :-
A. Shivani W/o Shantanu submitted a written complaint to
S.H.O. of PS. Women Cell, District Indore Urban on
24.04.2023 alleging demand of Rs.5 Crores, filthy abuses,
manhandling and threatening by her husband Shantanu
Agrawal, mother-in-law Renu Agrawal, father-in-law Swadesh
Agrawal and sister-in-law Radhika Agrawal. It is stated in the
complaint that Shivani was married to Shantanu Agrawal, a
resident of Bairagard, Bhopal, on 09.05.2022 according to
social customs and rituals with the consent of family members.
Her father had to bear expenses of Rs.1, 25,00,000/- for
organizing marriage functions at Radisson Resort, Udaipur in
Rajasthan. The family members had given jewellery sets on her
marriage. Her in-laws had demanded a luxury car, but her
family members had denied it. On 14.05.2022, her father had
arranged a party at Hotel Assentia, Indore. They stayed in the
hotel. Her husband Shantanu failed to make sexual relation
with her. Shantanu forcefully put his penis in her mouth and
had forceful unnatural anal sex with her. Shantanu abused her
in filthy language. Thereafter, on multiple occasions at Bhopal,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 07-07-2025
19:30:28
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:16870
3 MCRC-30843-2023
Shantanu attempted physical relation with her. After failing to
make physical relation, he used to abuse her and put his private
part in her mouth. Once Shantanu manhandled her and kicked
on her abdomen and her private part. When she complained to
her mother-in-law, she did not respond. On 19/05/2022, they
went to Rohatak and Manali, her husband Shantanu had
forceful unnatural sex with her. Her husband used to abuse and
manhandle her on his inability to make regular sexual
relations. On 29/05/2022, her husband manhandled her in the
car while going to his shop. On 25/06/2022, her husband
abused her in filthy language and passed obscene comments in
presence of her mother-in-law and father-in-law. She was
dragged by hair and kicked on her private part. Her husband
demanded Rs. 5,00,00,000/-, which her father had paid.
Thereafter, her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and
sister-in-law started demanding Rs. 5,00,00,000/-. Her father-
in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law used to instigate her
husband. In furtherance of which, her husband used to abuse
and manhandle her. She was not permitted to visit the private
toilet in the shop. On 18/09/2022, her husband had called her
parents and expelled her out of matrimonial home. Her mother-
in-law and father-in-law also threatened her. She is residing at
her parental home in Indore. Her husband sent her obscene
massages and threatened. She was mentally and physically
harassed by her husband Shantanu, mother-in-law Renu,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 07-07-2025
19:30:28
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:16870
4 MCRC-30843-2023
father-in-law Swadesh and sister-in-law Radhika. Her Stridhan
is kept by her husband and in-laws. On such allegations, Police
Station – Women Cell, District Indore for the offence
punishable under sections 498-A , 377, 406, 323, 294, 506, 34
of IPC and sections 3 /4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
B. Shivani was forwarded for medico legal examination. The
Medical Officer opined that there are no sign of use of force,
however, sexual violence cannot be ruled out. Statements of
Shivani were recorded under sections 161 and 164 of the
Cr.P.C. Relevant seizures were made. Statements of other
witnesses were recorded. The Final report was filed on
completion of investigation.
MCRC no. 30843 of 2023
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner Shantanu Agrawal, in addition
to the facts and grounds mentioned in the petition, contended that general
and omnibus allegations are made against the petitioner. The allegations
in FIR are absurd and inherently improbable. Respondent no. 2 had left
the matrimonial home, when the petitioner objected her talking to several
men on video call. The petitioner had submitted a representation to PS-
Kohefiza, Bhopal on 17/09/2022 (Annexure-A/2). When the petitioner
failed to bring her wife back to matrimonial home, he filed an
application under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of
conjugal rights on 10/12/2022 (Annexure-P/3). Respondent no. 2 had
sent notice to the petitioner through her advocate on 11/03/2023
(Annexure-P/4), wherein no allegations were leveled against the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 07-07-2025
19:30:28
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:16870
5 MCRC-30843-2023
petitioner. At the time of mediation between the parties on 18/04/2023,
respondent no. 2 had demanded Rs. 2,50,00,000/- to settle the dispute.
The present FIR is counter blast to the legal proceeding initiated by the
petitioner against his wife under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act and
blackmailed the petitioner for demand of Rs. 2,50,00,000/-. False
allegations with regard to unnatural sex are leveled against the petitioner.
Learned counsel referring to order dated 21st September, 2023 passed in
MCRC no. 59600 of 2022 by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case
o f Umang Singhar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and order dated
01/05/2024 passed in MCRC no. 8388 of 2023 in case of Manish Sahu
Vs,. State of Madhya Pradesh, contended that the offence of unnatural
sex is covered within the purview of rape as defined under section 375 of
the IPC, therefore, the offence punishable under section 377 of the IPC is
not made out. Learned counsel further referred to private complaint dated
05/08/2023 (Annexure-A/9) by respondent no. 2 and submitted that the
allegations in present FIR are aggravated to create the pressure on the
petitioner and his family members.
MCRC no. 26110 of 2023
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner Radhika Agrawal, in addition
to the facts and the grounds mentioned in the petition, contended that
petitioner Radhika is a married sister-in-law of respondent no. 2 Shivani.
The petitioner was married to Rahul Agrawal, Resident of Jaipur
(Rajasthan) on 27/06/2010. They were blessed with a baby girl presently
aged around 12 years. Petitioner Radhika is residing with her family at
Jaipur. False, general and manifest allegations are leveled against the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 07-07-2025
19:30:28
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:16870
6 MCRC-30843-2023
petitioner to harass the entire family. No specific details of allegations
against the petitioner are made in the complaint or the FIR. There were
exchange of notices and reply between the complainant and her husband
Shantanu. In none of the communications, allegations were made against
the petitioner. The allegations contained in FIR are malafide.
MCRC no. 46068 of 2023
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner Swadesh Agrawal and Renu
Agrawal, in addition to the facts and grounds mentioned in the petition,
contended that Swadesh Agrawal is father-in-law and Renu Agrawal is
mother-in-law of complainant / respondent no. 2, Shivani Agrawal.
There was matrimonial discord between Shivani and her husband
Shantanu. Shantanu had left her matrimonial home and went to reside
with her parents in June, 2022. Shantanu had submitted representation to
Police Station – Kohefiza, Bhopal on 17/09/2022. Thereafter, Shantanu
initiated proceeding for restitution of conjugal rights under section 9 of
the Hindu Marriage Act on 10/12/2022. When the mediation failed, false
allegations were leveled in the complaint dated 24/04/2023 against them.
The petitioners have been implicated on the basis of general, omnibus
and false allegations without specifying any date, time or place of the
incident alleged against the petitioners. The FIR is malafide and has been
filed with an ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance on the aged
petitioners.
7. Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondent contended that all the
accused have subjected the complainant to mental and physical
harassment and cruelty for demand of Rs. 5,00,00,000/-. They have
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 07-07-2025
19:30:28
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:16870
7 MCRC-30843-2023
misappropriated her Stridhan. The complainant was married with
Shantanu by suppressing his physical inability to perform natural sex.
The complainant had made similar allegations in all the communications.
When her efforts for amicable settlement failed and the petitioners
harassed her mentally and physically, she was compelled to lodge FIR
against them. All the petitions are meritless and deserve to be dismissed.
8. Heard both the parties and perused the record.
9. The Supreme Court in case of State of Haryana vs. Ch. Bhajan
Lal, reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 after an elaborate consideration of the
matter and after referring to its various earlier decisions, has observed in
para 108 as under:-
”108. 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 channelized 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 F.I.R. 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.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 07-07-2025
19:30:28
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:16870
8 MCRC-30843-2023
(4) Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence
but constitute only a noncognizable 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.”
10. In the case of Neeharika Infrastructure Vs State of Maharashtra
reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 315, a Three Judge Bench of the
Supreme Court reiterated the principles laid down in the case of
Bhajanlal (supra) and held that while the Courts ought to be cautious in
exercising powers under Section 482, they do have the power to quash
the proceedings. The test is whether or not, the allegations in the FIR
disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. The Court should not
enter into merits of the allegations or trench upon the lawful power of
Investigating Agency to investigate into the allegations involving
commission of a cognizable offence.
11. The Supreme Court in the case of Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal
Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330, laid down the steps to be followed for
exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, for quashing of
proceedings as under:-
”29. The issue being examined in the instant case is the jurisdiction of the High
Court under Section 482 CrPC, if it chooses to quash the initiation of the
prosecution against an accused at the stage of issuing process, or at the stage of
committal, or even at the stage of framing of charges. These are all stages
before the commencement of the actual trial. The same parameters wouldSignature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 07-07-2025
19:30:28
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:168709 MCRC-30843-2023
naturally be available for later stages as well. The power vested in the High
Court under Section 482 CrPC, at the stages referred to hereinabove, would
have far-reaching consequences inasmuch as it would negate the
prosecution’s/complainant’s case without allowing the prosecution/complainant
to lead evidence. Such a determination must always be rendered with caution,
care and circumspection. To invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482
CrPC the High Court has to be fully satisfied that the material produced by the
accused is such that would lead to the conclusion that his/their defence is based
on sound, reasonable, and indubitable facts; the material produced is such as
would rule out and displace the assertions contained in the charges levelled
against the accused; and the material produced is such as would clearly reject
and overrule the veracity of the allegations contained in the accusations levelled
by the prosecution/complainant. It should be sufficient to rule out, reject and
discard the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, without the
necessity of recording any evidence. For this the material relied upon by the
defence should not have been refuted, or alternatively, cannot be justifiably
refuted, being material of sterling and impeccable quality. The material relied
upon by the accused should be such as would persuade a reasonable person to
dismiss and condemn the actual basis of the accusations as false. In such a
situation, the judicial conscience of the High Court would persuade it to
exercise its power under Section 482 CrPC to quash such criminal proceedings,
for that would prevent abuse of process of the court, and secure the ends of
justice.
30. Based on the factors canvassed in the foregoing paragraphs, we would
delineate the following steps to determine the veracity of a prayer for
quashment raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High
Court under Section 482 CrPC:
30.1 Step one: whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound,
reasonable, and indubitable i.e. the material is of sterling and impeccable
quality?
30.2. Step two: whether the material relied upon by the accused would rule out
the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused i.e. the
material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in
the complaint i.e. the material is such as would persuade a reasonable person to
dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false?
30.3 Step three: whether the material relied upon by the accused has not been
refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such that it
cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant?
30.4. Step four: whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of
process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice?
30.5. If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, the judicial conscience
of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal proceedings in
exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 CrPC. Such exercise of power,Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 07-07-2025
19:30:28
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:1687010 MCRC-30843-2023
besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which
would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as proceedings
arising therefrom) specially when it is clear that the same would not conclude
in the conviction of the accused.”
12. In the case of Preeti Gupta and Another Vs. State of Jharkhand
and Another reported in (2010) 7 SCC 667, the Hon’ble Supreme Court,
expressing concern over the rapid growth of matrimonial litigation, had
observed that most of the complaints under Section 498-A of IPC are
filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper
deliberations. Many such complaints are not even bona fide and are filed
with oblique motive. Therefore, the allegation needs to be scrutinized
with great care and circumspection, especially against the husband’s
relatives who are living in different cities and never visited or rarely
visited the matrimonial home of the complainant.
13. In the case of Neelu Chopra and Another Vs. Bharti reported in
(2009) 10 SCC 184, the Supreme Court observed that mere mentioning
the allegations for making out alleged offence is not sufficient and
particulars of offence committed by each accused and role played by
them in committing that offence need to be specifically stated.
14. The material on record is examined in the light of aforestated
propositions of law.
15. A perusal of the complaint and consequential FIR reveals
specific allegations of cruelty against husband and mental and physical
harassment over inadequacy of dowry and further demand of money. The
law laid down by the Co-ordinate Benches vide order dated 21st
September, 2023 passed in MCRC no. 59600 of 2022 in the case of
Umang Singhar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and order dated 01/05/2024
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 07-07-2025
19:30:28
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:16870
11 MCRC-30843-2023
passed in MCRC no. 8388 of 2023 in case of Manish Sahu Vs,. State of
Madhya Pradesh, regarding non-applicability of Section 377 of IPC on
allegation of unnatural sex against husband, may be considered by the
trial Court while framing the charges. But in the considered opinion of
this Court, such allegations, prima -facie , constitutes the ingredients of
mental and physical harassment amounting to cruelty punishable under
Section 498-A of IPC. The complainant has alleged specific incidents of
cruelty with relevant details of such incidents. The allegations in the FIR
cannot be said to be inherently improbable or absurd. At this juncture, it
cannot be said that possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and
continuation of criminal case would put the accused husband to great
oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him.
Therefore, no case is made out for quashing entire FIR and consequential
proceedings in exercise of inherent jurisdiction in view of the law laid
down by the Apex court in cases of Bhajan Lal and Neeharika (supra). In
view of the above discussion, the precedents of law relied upon by the
learned counsel for petitioner are of no assistance, as the same are
distinguishable on facts.
16.. Apparently, there is matrimonial discord between Shantanu and
his wife Shivani. Shivani is residing at her parental home since
September, 2022. The general and omnibus allegations of harassment by
father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law regarding demand of Rs. 5
Crore are not sufficient to make out cruelty as defined in Section 498A
of IPC. No specific incident, conduct or role of petitioners Swadesh
Agrawal, Renu Agrawal and Radhika Agrawal regarding mental and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 07-07-2025
19:30:28
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:16870
12 MCRC-30843-2023
physical harassment amounting to cruelty is made out from the contents
of the FIR or the statements of the complainant recorded u/Ss. 161 and
164 of Cr.P.C. There is no material to prima facie make out entrustment
of alleged streedhan of complainant to the petitioner Swadesh Kumar
Agrawal, Renu Agrawal and Radhika. Therefore, the essential ingredient
to constitute offence punishable under Section 406 of IPC is missing.
(Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. v. State of U.P., (2024) 10 SCC 690
relied).
17. The inordinate delay in lodging the complaint also creates
question mark on veracity of such general and omnibus allegations. The
implication of father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law appears to
be counter-blast to the proceedings of restitution of conjugal rights
initiated by their son/brother, Shantanu. In such a scenario, the trial of
petitioners Swadesh Agrawal, Renu Agrawal and Radhika Agrawal, in
above stated circumstances, on generalized and omnibus allegations,
would an abuse of process of the Court and would not serve the ends of
justice.
18. Consequently, in view of law laid down in case of Chandralekha
Vs. state of Rajasthan reported in (2013) 14 SCC 374 and Kahkashan
Kausar @ Sonam & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2022) 6 SCC
5 9 9 , the FIR and the consequential proceedings thereto against
petitioners Swadesh Agrawal, Renu Agrawal and Radhika Agrawal
deserves to be quashed in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section
482 CrPC.
19. Accordingly, M.Cr.C. No.46068 of 2023 and 26110 of 2023 are
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 07-07-2025
19:30:28
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:16870
13 MCRC-30843-2023
allowed with the direction that the FIR in Crime No. 72 of 2023 of Police
Station – Women Cell, Indore, District- Indore urban for the offence
punishable under 498-A, 377, 406, 323, 294, 506, 34 of IPC and sections
3 / 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and all consequential proceedings
thereto, so far as they relate to petitioners Swadesh Kumar Agrawal,
Renu Agrawal and Radhika W/o Rahul Agrawal , are hereby quashed.
20. M.Cr.C. No 30843 of 2023. filed by the petitioner Shantanu
Agrawal is dismissed.
C c as per rules.
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
amol
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 07-07-2025
19:30:28
[ad_1]
Source link