[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Piyush Arvind Verulkar And 2 Others vs State Of Mah. Thr. Pso, Ps Gadgenagar ... on 5 December, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:13811-DB
Cri.APL1628.23.odt 1/7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL)NO. 1628/2023
1. Piyush Arvind Verulkar,
Aged about 40 years, Occ - Service,
2. Arvind Wamanrao Verulkar
Aged about 74 years, Occ- Retired Lecturer,
3. Minakshi Arvind Verulkar
Aged about 70 years, Occ- Retired Teacher,
All R/o. LIG-17, Nandanwan Colony,
in front of Military Girls Hostel,
Chaprashi Pura, Amravati,
Tq. & Dist. Amravati
... APPLICANTS
...VERSUS...
1. State Of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
Police Station Gadgenagar, Amravati,
Tq. & Dist. Amravati.
2. Nisha Piyush Verulkar,
Aged about 39 years, Occ- Service,
R/o. Palash Line, Besides Radha Krushna
Temple, Gadge Nagar, Tq. & Dist. Amravati
...NON-APPLICANTS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. S.M. Vaishnav, Advocate for applicants
Mr. V. B. Bhise, Advocate for non-applicant no. 2
Mr. A. J. Gohokar, APP for non-applicant/State
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cri.APL1628.23.odt 2/7
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE AND
NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATED : 05.12.2025
JUDGMENT (PER : NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.)
1. Heard. Admit. Heard finally with the consent of learned
Counsel for the parties.
2. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the First Information Report
bearing No. 0476 of 2023 filed by the non-applicant no. 2 for
offences punishable under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860. As per the contents of the First
Information Report the non-applicant no. 2 filed the report before
the non-applicant no. 1. Her marriage with the applicant no. 1 was
performed on 10.03.2015. Thereafter, she left to reside in her
matrimonial house, she was treated nicely for some days. However,
thereafter, Applicant no. 1 doubting her character was habitually
checking her mobile phone and was in the surveillance on her.
Furthermore, applicant nos. 2 and 3 who happen to be the in-laws
were instigating the applicant no. 1. The First Information Report
further alleges that on 29.08.2022 the applicant no. 1 abused her
and threatened her for life. The non-applicant no. 2 told about the
said incident to her brother namely Nikhil Phatekar but the
applicants refused the non-applicant no. 2 to accompanying with
them. The various efforts made to reconcile the matter therefore,
lodging the First Information Report in question. It is this First
Information Report which is challenged in the present application
on the grounds stated therein.
3. We have heard Mr. S.M. Vaishnav learned counsel for the
applicants as well as Mr. A.J. Gohokar, learned APP for non-
applicant no. 1/State and Mr. V.B. Bhise for non-applicant no. 2.
4. Mr. S.M. Vaishnav learned counsel for the applicants by
taking us to the contents of the First Information Report submits
that there are no specific allegations as against the present
applicant nos. 2 and 3 and allegations are general, vague and
omnibus in nature. It is his submission that even after a meaningful
reading of the First Information Report in question, no offence as
complained of is made out under the said application. Therefore,
prays for quashing of the First Information Report.
5. Per contra, learned APP while opposing the submissions the
learned counsel for the applicants states that there is no specific
allegations and the statements are recorded during the
investigation. He therefore, states that in view of the fact that there
are allegation against all the applicants prays for rejection of the
application. Learned counsel for the non-applicant no. 2 Mr. V. B.
Bhise while supporting the contentions advanced by the APP states
that the term "cruelty" as contemplated under Section 498A is
made out from the allegations in the First Information Report and
prays for rejection of the application.
6. We have perused the First Information Report as well as the
investigation papers placed before us by the learned APP. As can be
seen from the said papers, there are specific allegations against the
applicant no. 1 husband who is the main perpetrator. However, the
allegations concerning to applicant nos. 2 to 3 seem to be vague in
nature. Now a days there is flood of matrimonial litigations in the
Court whereby the Supreme Court in the case of Preeti Gupta and
Another vs. State of Jharkhand and Another, reported in (2010) 7
SCC 667 has observed in para 30, 32 and 34 as under:
"30. It has held that "it is a matter of common knowledge
that unfortunately matrimonial litigation is rapidly increasing
in our country. All the courts in our country including this
court are flooded with matrimonial cases. This clearly
demonstrates discontent and unrest in the family life like of a
large number of people of the society.
32. It is a matter of common experience that most of
these complaints under section 498-A IPC are filed in the heat
of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations.
We come across a large number of such complaints which are
not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the
same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of
dowry harassment is also a matter of serious concern.
34. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint
the implications and consequences are not properly visualized
by the complainant that such complaint can lead to
insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the
complainant, accused and his close relations."
7. Furthermore, same view has been reiterated in many
judgments like Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam vs. State Of Bihar,
reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599, where in it is observed as under :-
"The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that
this court has at numerous instances expressed concern
over the misuse of section 498A IPC and the increased
tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in
matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long term
ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the
accused. It is further manifest from the said judgments
that false implication by way of general omnibus
allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if
left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of
law. Therefore, this court by way of its judgments has
warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives
and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is
made out against them."
8. In view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that
the allegations made against the applicant nos. 2 and 3 are vague
and omnibus in nature. We are therefore inclined to allow the
application as far as the applicant nos. 2 and 3 are concerned.
Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following order :
ORDER
i) Application is partly allowed.
ii) First Information Report bearing No. 0476 of 2023 against
the applicant nos. 2 and 3 i.e. applicant no. 2 - Arvind Wamanrao
Verulkar and applicant no. 3 - Minakshi Arvind Verulkar is quashed
and set aside.
iii) However, the prosecution is continue as far as the applicant
no. 1 is concerned.
iv) Application is partly allowed and disposed of in above said
terms.
(NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.) (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)
Shubham
