MP High Court: Delay In Lodging S.85 BNS FIR Does Not Make Wife's Dowry Complaint A Counterblast

Home / News updates MP High Court: Delay In Lodging S.85 BNS FIR Does Not Make Wife's Dowry Complaint A Counterblast X Wife Staying Silent to Save Marriage Is Not Weakness: MP High Court Refuses to Quash Dowry Cruelty FIR The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that a 14-month delay in lodging a dowry cruelty FIR is no ground to quash it, as disputed facts and documents must be tested at trial. The Madhya Pradesh High Court has refused to quash a dowry harassment FIR against a Bhopal man and his parents, observing that a wife who stays silent to save her marriage cannot be accused of weakness and that delay alone does not make her complaint a "counterblast" . Justice Pramod Kumar Agrawal of the Jabalpur bench dismissed the petition on Monday, October 5. It was filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) (Section 482 of CrPC) by the husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant. The FIR was registered at Bagsewaniya police station in Bhopal under Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) (Section 498A of IPC), which deals with cruelty. Appearing for the petitioners, Advocate Ajay Kumar Jain argued that they were innocent and falsely implicated. He said the marriage took place on January 26, 2025, and the wife has lived at her parental home since March 18, 2025, yet the FIR was lodged only on May 12, 2026, nearly 14 months later. He submitted that the petitioners themselves bought the gold ornaments, as bills on record show, and also paid the wedding hotel bill. No car was ever demanded, he said, since the wife's family already owned two four-wheelers. No offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was registered, he added, and the allegations were "general and omnibus" . The alleged demand of 25 tolas of gold during the last rituals of the husband's grandmother was incorrect, he argued, as the husband was on duty. Opposing the plea, Advocate Sanjay Pandey, for the wife, submitted that she had been harassed from the beginning. Her parents, he said, spent roughly Rs 60 to 70 lakh on the wedding, including Rs 15 lakh in cash, even as the petitioners demanded cash and other articles. He claimed the husband also sought money during the honeymoon. The FIR was not lodged immediately, he said, because her family was trying to settle the dispute. Deputy Government Advocate Ranjana Agnihotri, for the State, submitted that the wife had named the petitioners in her statements under Sections 180 and 183 of the BNSS (Sections 161 and 164 of CrPC), that her parents and other witnesses supported her, and that the chargesheet had already been filed. Relying on Supreme Court rulings including Supriya Jain v. State of Haryana , Gulam Mustafa v. State of Karnataka and CBI v. Aryan Singh , the High Court reiterated that an FIR can be quashed if the allegations disclose no offence, but "it is not permissible for it to conduct a mini-trial to arrive at such findings" . It added that it must "rely upon the FIR and the report submitted by the police" . On the delay, the court was firm. "If a wife maintains patience and remains silent with the intention of saving her matrimonial life, it cannot be said that such conduct amounts to any weakness on her part," the order states. "On the contrary, it reflects her sincerity and earnest endeavour to save her married life." A wife may lodge a complaint after realising that her in-laws' conduct has not improved and reconciliation is no longer possible, the court explained. In such a situation, the FIR "cannot, merely on account of the delay, be said" to be a counterblast. The bench noted that both the FIR and the BNSS statements contain specific allegations of cruelty and dowry demand. The bills, vehicle documents and investigation material relied upon by the petitioners, it said, "involve disputed questions of fact and cannot be adjudicated upon" in such proceedings. These, the court said, are matters for the Trial Court after evidence is recorded. Fin

Source: Original reporting via LawBeat