The Madhya Pradesh High Court quashed an FIR against the husband underscoring that while the possibility of an amicable settlement between the parties in the future remained plausible, the ongoing legal proceedings would fuel animosity between them. The Court noted that the allegations in the complaint that led to the FIR are "omnibus".

The petitioner husband, who is the accused, filed a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C seeking the quashing of FIR lodged by the complainant/respondent No.2, who is the petitioner's wife, alleging offences under Sections 506 and 294 of the IPC.

A Bench of Justice Pranay Verma held, “The possibility of an amicable settlement between the parties in future is a reasonable probability. However, as long as proceedings such as the present one continue to remain pending between them, there animosity towards each other would not be lessened in any manner and if proceedings like the present one are terminated it would facilitate chances of a settlement between them.”

Advocate Deeptanshu Shukla appeared for the Petitioner and Advocate V. Panwar appeared for the Respondent.

According to the prosecution, the complainant alleged that since 2017, the petitioner has been abusing, threatening, and demanding money from her for divorce. However, the petitioner denied these allegations, stating they were false and made with malafide intent due to ongoing matrimonial disputes.

The Court noted that while there were claims of abuse and threats, they lacked specificity regarding dates, times, or locations of incidents. The Court added, “Though respondent No.2 has alleged that the petitioner abuses her, threatens her and demands money from her for divorce in the Court as well as in any party of friends but it is obvious that no specific allegations in that regard have been levelled. No date, time or place of the incident has been narrated by respondent No.2. Even the period when the said occurrences may have happened has not been stated. Abstract statement has been given by respondent No.2 as regards the acts of the petitioner.”

The Court also observed that the parties were still legally married, with custody proceedings pending in the Family Court, and the possibility of an amicable settlement existed. The Court said, “From the relations as are presently existing between petitioner and respondent No.2 it is apparent that the FIR has been lodged by respondent No.2 only for implicating the petitioner in one another legal proceeding besides the proceedings which are already pending between them. It is on that count that no specific allegations have been levelled by her and only omnibus allegations have been made”

Consequently, the Court granted the petitioner's petition and quashed FIR registered against the petitioner for offences under Sections 506 and 294 of the IPC.

Cause Title: X v. The State of Madhya Pradesh Station House Officer & Anr.

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocate Deeptanshu Shukla

Respondents: Advocates V. Panwar and Archana Maheshwari

Click here to read/download Order



Madhya Pradesh High CourtJustice Pranay Verma

Suchita Shukla