Bombay High Court
Kajal Sagar Bansod vs State Of Maharashtra Thr Police Station ... on 22 August, 2025
Author: Anil Laxman Pansare
Bench: Anil Laxman Pansare
2025:BHC-NAG:8304-DB
1 apl 415.2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 415 OF 2025
[Kajal Sagar Bansod vs. The State of Maharashtra, through
P.S.O., Paratwada, Tq. Paratwada, Dist. Amravati and anr.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------------------ - - -
Mr. A. S. Deshpande, Advocate for the applicant
Ms. S. N. Thakur, APP for the State/non-applicant no. 1
Mr. V. A. Anand, Advocate for non-applicant no. 2
CORAM: ANIL L. PANSARE AND
M. M. NERLIKAR, JJ.
Date of reserving order : 18-08-2025
Date of pronouncement of order : 22-08-2025
On 11-8-2025, following order was passed.
"In an application seeking to quash First
Information Report (FIR) and charge-sheet, learned
counsel for non-applicant no. 2 seeks time to file reply.
The counsel for non-applicant no. 2 shall justify
filing reply in such proceeding where the law is well
settled that the contents of FIR and charge-sheet are to be
looked into and if offence is made out, the question of
quashing the FIR/charge-sheet does not arrive. At the
same time, if the contents of FIR and charge-sheet are
accepted on face value and if the offence is not made out,
the FIR/charge-sheet ought to be quashed.
We have gone through the FIR and the charge-
sheet. According to non-applicant no. 2, her husband is in
relationship with the applicant and, therefore, was
harassing her and in doing so, the in-laws have supported
the husband. With such allegations, the Investigating
Officer has lodged FIR against the husband and in-laws of
non-applicant no. 2 as also against the applicant, who is
said to be a lady in relationship with non-applicant no. 2's
husband.
When enquired about the best evidence against
the applicant, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
submits that excepts for the chats exchanged between the
2 apl 415.2025
applicant and husband of non-applicant no. 2 which
indicate that they were in relationship, there is no other
evidence. The question, therefore, is whether the
ingredients of Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860
(for short 'IPC') are attracted.
Section 498-A of the IPC reads as under :-
"498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman
subjecting her to cruelty -- Whoever, being the
husband or the relative of the husband of a woman,
subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to three
years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation -- For the purpose of this section,
"cruelty" means --
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is
likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to
cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health
(whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment
is with a view to coercing her or any person related to
her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or
valuable security or is on account of failure by her or
any person related to her to meet such demand.]"
Thus, to attract Section 498-A of the IPC, there
has to be allegations against husband or relatives of the
husband of subjecting the wife/woman to cruelty. The
first explanation defines 'cruelty' to mean any wilful
conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the
woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or
danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical)
of the woman.
The allegation here, according to non-applicant
no. 2, is that the applicant has exchanged messages which
can be said to be a message instigating non-applicant no.
2's husband to subject non-applicant no. 2 to cruelty.
Learned counsel for non-applicant no. 2 has
invited our attention to the messages exchanged by the
applicant and non-applicant no. 2's husband. The
messages indicate that the applicant had asked non-
applicant no. 2's husband to leave non-applicant no. 2, to
3 apl 415.2025
which non-applicant no. 2's husband asked her whether
she will reside with him. The applicant said 'no'.
At this stage, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor submits that the applicant is also married and
that may be the reason, why did she refuse to reside with
non-applicant no. 2's husband. As against, learned
counsel for non-applicant no. 2 submits that applicant's
husband has expired.
May be that the applicant's husband expired but
the fact is that she was not willing to reside with non-
applicant no. 2's husband. The moot question, however, is
whether such a fact can be said to be cruelty to the non-
applicant no. 2 that too at the hands of applicant. The
answer would be certainly in the negative.
The cruelty should be such that would show that
a person is by wilful conduct is creating a circumstance
that would drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause
grave injury or danger to life, limb or health. The
contents of FIR or charge-sheet does not suggest that the
conduct of the applicant had a potential to drive non-
applicant no. 2 to commit suicide nor is there such
allegation at the hands of non-applicant no. 2.
The second explanation would require
harassment with a view to coerce the woman to meet any
unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or
the harassment is on account of failure of the woman to
make such demand.
It is nobody's case that the applicant has ever
harassed non-applicant no. 2 for any unlawful demand for
any property or valuable security. That being so, prima
facie we are of the view that no case is made out against
the applicant for the offence punishable under Section
498-A of the IPC.
Nonetheless, learned counsel for non-applicant
no. 2 seeks time to file reply which shall be filed justifying
the same.
In the meantime, there shall be stay to the FIR
being Crime No. 0663/2024 and charge-sheet No.
180/2024 pending before Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Court No. 1, Achalpur.
4 apl 415.2025
Stand over to 18-8-2025.
The applicant shall correct pagination of second
set."
2. Thus, we were of the view that no case is made out
against the applicant for the offence punishable under Section
498-A of the IPC. It was only because the counsel of non-
applicant no. 2 insisted to file reply, we had granted time to
him to justify filing reply. Thus, what was expected from the
non-applicant no. 2 is the reason why should we permit her to
file reply in a proceedings seeking to quash the FIR and charge-
sheet.
3. The counsel for non-applicant no. 2 submits that reply
is ready and will be filed during the course of the day. Since
we expected reasons to file reply, we thought it proper to hear
the parties to ascertain whether filing reply will have any
bearing on the outcome of the proceedings.
4. As such, the law is well settled which we have
mentioned in the order dated 11-8-2025 viz. in an application
seeking to quash the FIR/charge-sheet, what is relevant is to
accept the case put forth by the prosecution and to find out
whether the offence is made out against the accused. Thus,
what is relevant is the contents of FIR/charge-sheet. It is, in
this context, the non-applicant no. 2 was called upon to justify
filing reply and to show that it is permissible to consider
additional material, which is not part of the FIR/charge-sheet.
5. In this regard, we may refer to the judgment of the
Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Vs. Ram Kishan Rohtagi and ors. [(1983) 1 SCC 1] wherein
while dealing with the scope of Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.'), the Hon'ble
5 apl 415.2025
Supreme Court observed thus :
"9. Same view was taken in a later decision of this
Court in Sharda Prasad Sinha vs. State of Bihar where
Bhagwati, J. speaking for the Court observed as follows:
[SCC para 2, p. 506 : SCC (Cri) p. 133]
"It is now settled law that where the allegations set out
in the complaint or the charge-sheet do not constitute
any offence, it is competent to the High Court exercising
its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure to quash the order passed by the
Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence."
10. It is, therefore, manifestly clear that proceedings
against an accused in the initial stages can be quashed only
if on the face of the complaint or the papers accompanying
the same, no offence is constituted. In other words, the test
is that taking the allegations and the complaint as they are,
without adding or subtracting anything, if no offence is
made out then the High Court will be justified in quashing
the proceedings in exercise of its powers under Section 482
of the present Code." (emphasis now)
As could be seen, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that
the proceedings against the accused can be quashed, if on the
face of the complaint or the papers accompanying the same, no
offence is constituted. The Court then observed that the test is
that taking the allegations and the complaint as they are,
without adding or subtracting anything, if no offence is made
out, then the High Court will be justified in quashing the
proceedings. Thus, the Court has to take the allegations in the
complaint as they are and without adding or subtracting
anything, Court has to ascertain whether the offence is made
out or not. In other words, neither can anything be added nor
can anything be subtracted from the FIR/charge-sheet to
ascertain whether the offence is constituted. In the
circumstances, unless the persons like non-applicant no. 2
makes out a case, assigning reasons as to why filing reply is
necessary, the request to file reply cannot be acceded to.
6 apl 415.2025
6. In M. Srikanth Vs. State of Telangana and anr.
[(2019) 10 SCC 373], the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while
dealing with the powers to quash the proceedings under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., referred to the landmark judgment
in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp(1)
SCC 335] and observed thus :-
"17. It could thus be seen, that this Court has held,
that where the allegations made in the FIR or the
complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and
accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute a
case against the accused, the High Court would be
justified in quashing the proceedings. Further, it has been
held that where the uncontroverted allegations in the FIR
and the evidence collected in support of the same do not
disclose any offence and make out a case against the
accused, the Court would be justified in quashing the
proceedings."
Thus, the Supreme Court has reiterated that where the
allegations made in the FIR or the complaint, even if, they are
taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, if the
offence is not made out, the High Court will be justified in
quashing the proceedings. The Court further held that where
the uncontroverted allegations in the FIR and the evidence
collected in support of the same does not disclose any offence
and make out a case against the accused, the Court would be
justified in quashing the proceedings.
7. Accordingly, we have heard the parties to find that
nothing more is to be added than what has been noted in order
dated 11-8-2025 that the contents of the FIR/Charge-sheet, if
taken on face value, does not constitute offence.
8. As such, the counsel for non-applicant no. 2 submits
that in order dated 11-8-2025, the Court has focused only on
explanation (b) of Section 498-A of the IPC, we, therefore,
7 apl 415.2025
called upon him to read the entire order to point out that there
is not only reference to the first explanation that defines cruelty
but a categorical finding noted that the contents of FIR or
charge-sheet in the present case do not suggest that the conduct
of the applicant had a potential to drive non-applicant no. 2 to
commit suicide nor is there such allegation at the hands of
non-applicant no. 2. Thereafter was discussed the second
explanation to find that case is not made out under the said
explanation as well.
9. With regard to the allegations under Sections 504 and
506 of the IPC, we have not come across any material evidence
nor have the non-applicants pointed out any specific allegations
or grounds of complaint against the applicant in this regard. It
is pertinent to note that the applicant is a distant relative of the
husband of non-applicant no. 2 and has not resided with the
said couple or their immediate family members. Consequently,
there was no occasion or opportunity for the applicant to have
engaged in any conduct constituting harassment or intent to
cause harm to non-applicant no. 2.
10. The counsel representing non-applicant no. 2 failed to
demonstrate that any additional material, whether in the form
of a reply or otherwise, would necessitate a different conclusion
by this Court. However, he posed a question, namely, whether
the harassment allegedly inflicted by non-applicant no. 2's
husband on her, due to his relationship with the applicant,
would not constitute harassment by the applicant. In our
considered view, such an argument merely underscores the
irritation or distress experienced by non-applicant no. 2,
which, given the peculiar facts of the case, may be deemed
justifiable in light of her emotional state regarding her
husband's relationship with the applicant. Nonetheless, this
8 apl 415.2025
line of reasoning does not establish the requisite elements of
cruelty under Section 498-A of the IPC.
11. Thus, the contents of FIR and charge-sheet, even if,
accepted at its face value, do not constitute offence under
Section 498-A of the IPC. This is, therefore, a fit case where
powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. should be invoked.
Accordingly, we allow the application in terms of prayer clause
(b) which reads as under :-
"b. be pleased to quash and set aside F.I.R. dated 09.10.2024
(ANNEXURE-A) and Criminal proceedings vide Crime No.
0663/2024 and chage-sheet No. 180/2024 dated
17/12/2024 (ANNEXURE-B), which came to be
registered against the applicant by respondent No.1- i.e.
Police Station Officer, Police Station Partwada, District
Amravati for the offences punishable u/s 498-A, 504, 506
R/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, being arbitrary, illegal and
capricious;"
12. Needless to say that proceedings are quashed qua the
applicant.
(M. M. NERLIKAR, J.) (ANIL L. PANSARE, J.)
wasnik
Signed by: Mr. A. Y. Wasnik
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 22/08/2025 18:11:02
