The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed a husband's plea seeking quashing of an FIR alleging cruelty by him and his relatives upon his wife, observing that delay in FIR cannot by itself amount to a counterblast. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 406]

Emphasizing that the wife's conduct in lodging the FIR after 14 months could not be construed as weakness but rather reflected her sincere efforts to reconcile and save the marriage, the bench of Justice Vishal Mishra observed:

"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. On the contrary, it reflects her sincerity and earnest endeavour to save her married life. After realizing that the conduct of her in-laws has not improved and reconciliation is no longer possible, the wife decides to lodge an F.I.R./complaint regarding the cruelty meted out to her, it cannot, merely on account of the delay, be said that the said F.I.R. is a counterblast". 

A petition was filed by the husband seeking to quash the FIR and consequential criminal proceedings for cruelty by the husband and his relatives under Section 85 of the BNS or Section 498A of the IPC. 

Per the counsel for the husband, the marriage was solemnised on January 26, 2025, but the wife was residing in her parental house since March 18, 2025. She thereafter lodged a complaint on May 12, 2026, after a lapse of 14 months, against the husband (petitioner no. 1), his father (petitioner no. 2), and his mother (petitioner no. 3). The FIR also included Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act along with Section 498-A of the IPC/Section 85 of the BNS. 

The counsel further produced the bills incurred at the time of marriage to demonstrate that the petitioners had paid the said bills. Further, it was argued that the petitioners never demanded any car or four-wheeler from the wife's parents. 

It was argued that the allegations against the petitioners are general and omnibus in nature and that the wife had possession of her stridhan and other articles given to her at the time of the marriage. 

The counsel for the wife argued that the petitioners harassed her from the very beginning. It was stated that her parents had spent ₹60-70 lakhs on the wedding and also gave cash amounting to ₹15 lakhs and other articles to the petitioners. 

Further, it was argued that during the honeymoon, the husband demanded money from her and that she paid ₹50,000 and ₹10,000. It was stated that since there was a possibility of compromise, the wife was trying to settle the matter and therefore did not lodge the FIR immediately. 

The court, referring to the case of Supriya Jain v. State of Haryana, reiterated the scope of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CPC. 

The bench rejected the husband's contention regarding delay in filing the FIR. The court noted that the wife, in her statements under Sections 180 and 183, has categorically stated that the petitioners subjected her to cruelty and demanded dowry. Therefore, the bench noted that the material collected during investigation ought to be adjudicated by the Trial Court and not under Section 482 CrPC jurisdiction.

Therefore, the court dismissed the present petition, noting that no ground for interference was made to obtain an order quashing the FIR. 

For Petitioner: Advocate Ajay Kumar Jain

For State: Deputy General Advocate Ranjana Agnihotri

For Respondent: Advocate Sanjay Pandey