[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Ujjwal Sureshrao Thakare And Another vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Ps ... on 15 December, 2025
18-apl757.20.odt 1/6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) No.757 OF 2020
(Ujjwal Sureshrao Thakare and another Vs. State of Maharashtra, through PSO, PS
Sewagaram, Wardha and another)
__________________________________________________________________________
Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram,
appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders.
and Registrar's Orders.
Mr. Mir Nagman Ali, Advocate for applicants.
Mr. M.J. Khan, APP for non-applicant No.1.
Mr. Mahesh Rai, Advocate for non-applicant No.2.
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE AND
NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATE : 15th DECEMBER, 2025.
1. Leave is granted to the applicants to carry out
amendment.
2. Present application is preferred by the applicants for
quashing of the First Information Report in connection with
Crime No.289/2020, registered under Section 498A, read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the consequent
proceeding arising out of same bearing R.C.C. No.877/2020,
pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Wardha.
3. The crime is registered on the basis of a report
lodged by the informant on an allegations that the
non-applicant No.2 is in Police service as well as the present
applicant No.1 is also in Police service. Their marriage was
settled and performed on 13.12.2018. As per the allegations
levelled against the present applicants that she stayed along
with present applicant No.1 at his native place and thereafter
she was ill-treated by the present applicants as well as other
18-apl757.20.odt 2/6
family members. It is alleged that she was ill-treated by the
applicant No.1 for various reasons. She got pregnant, at that
time also no proper care was taken by the present applicants
and she has herself has incurred the expenses towards her
delivery. She was physically as well as mentally tortured by the
present applicants, due to which she constrained to leave the
matrimonial house and thereby she lodged the report against
the present applicants. On the basis of the said report Police
have registered the crime against the present applicants.
4. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, who
submitted that considering the entire allegations levelled
against the present applicants which is general, omnibus and
vague in nature. No specific instances are narrated as far as
ill-treatment at the hands of applicant No.1 is concerned. She
submitted that applicant No.2 is implicated merely because she
is mother of the applicant No.1. She submitted that in fact the
non-applicant No.2 has settled the matter with applicant No.1
and they both have filed application for dissolution of marriage
by mutual consent. However, subsequent to the filing of this
application, the non-applicant No.2 has reverted back and now
she is not ready to settle the matter and, therefore, the present
application deserves to be decided on merit. She submitted
that even accepting the allegations as it is, no prima facie
material is there to connect the present applicants with the
alleged offence as the allegations levelled against the applicant
No.1 general, omnibus and vague in nature. In view of that, the
application deserves to be allowed.
5. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
non-applicant No.1 and learned counsel for the non-applicant
18-apl757.20.odt 3/6
No.2 strongly opposed the said application and submitted that
non-applicant No.2, who is the a Police Constable, who was
subjected for the physical as well as mental ill-treatment at the
hands of applicant No.1. She has narrated in detail regarding
the ill-treatment which was in the nature of physical and
mental. Her previous applications to the Police also discloses
the ill-treatment at the hands of the applicant No.1. She was
on various occasions threatened and she was also pressurized
for obtaining the divorce. Thus, considering all these aspects,
the application deserves to be rejected.
6. On hearing both sides and on perusal of the entire
investigation papers as far the applicant No.2 is concerned,
admittedly no specific allegations are levelled against her, but
applicant No.1 who is the husband against whom she has
specifically alleged that he has ill-treated her by demanding an
amount of Rs.50,000/- as well as she was beaten on various
occasions. She has specifically narrated various incidence as far
as physical ill-treatment is concerned. She has narrated the
incident of November 2018, February 2019 and 26.10.2019.
Thus, from the entire statement of the informant it reveals that
she has specifically narrated as to the act of the present
applicants. Present applicant No.1 is also a Police Constable
serving in Police service.
7. Considering the provisions under Section 498A of
the Indian Penal Code was introduced with primary object of
protecting the married women from cruelty at the hands of
their husbands or their in-laws. "The section provides a broad
and inclusive definition of "cruelty," encompassing both
physical and mental harm to the woman's body or health. In
18-apl757.20.odt 4/6
addition, it covers acts of harassment designed to coerce the
woman or her family into fulfilling unlawful demands for
property or valuable security, including demands related to
dowry. Notably, the provision also recognizes acts that create
circumstances leading a woman to the point of suicide as a
form of cruelty.
The definition of "harassment" under the
Explanation to Section 498A is specifically outlined in clause
(b), independent to the "wilful conduct" described in clause
(a), thus necessitating a separate reading of the two. It is
significant to note that the inclusion of the word "or" at the end
of clause (a) clearly indicates that "cruelty" for the purposes of
Section 498A can either involve wilful conduct that causes
mental or physical harm or harassment related to unlawful
demands, such as dowry. Moreover, these forms of cruelty can
co-exist, but the absence of a dowry-related demand does not
preclude the application of the section in cases where there is
mental or physical harassment unrelated to dowry. In
interpreting the provision, it is crucial to consider the broader
objective behind its introduction--to safeguard women from all
forms of cruelty, regardless of whether the nature of the harm
inflicted includes a specific demand for dowry or not."
8. Here a reference can be given to the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Preeti Gupta and another Vs.
State of Jharkhand and another, reported in (2010) 7 SCC 667,
wherein Hon'ble Apex Court observed in para 30, 32 and 34 as
under :
"30. It is a matter of common
knowledge that unfortunately matrimonial
18-apl757.20.odt 5/6
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 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 are 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."
9. Considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court and considering the facts and circumstance of the present
case that there is specific allegations against the applicant No.1
regarding the ill-treatment which covers the clause (a) and (b)
of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. As far as applicant
No.2 is concerned, admittedly general allegations are levelled
against her and she appears to be implicated merely because
she is the mother of the applicant No.1. Considering no
prima facie case is made out against her, the application
deserves to be allowed partly.
10. Accordingly, we proceed to pass following order ;
18-apl757.20.odt 6/6
ORDER
(i) The application is allowed partly.
(ii) First Information Report in connection
with Crime No.289/2020, registered under Section 498A, read
with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the consequent
proceeding arising out of same bearing R.C.C. No.877/2020,
pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Wardha is
hereby quashed to the extent of applicant No.2, namely, Gitatai
Sureshrao Thakare.
(iii) The prayer of the applicant No.1 for
quashing of the F.I.R. is hereby rejected.
(Nandesh S. Deshpande, J.) (Urmila Joshi-Phalke, J.)
Wadode
Signed by: Mr. Devendra Wadode
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 16/12/2025 17:45:12
