Bombay High Court
Gajanan Vishwanath Chirmade And 7 ... vs State Of Mah., Thr. P.S.O. Khandala, ... on 10 November, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:11777-DB
J-apl128.20.odt 1/7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) No.128 OF 2020
1. Gajanan Vishwanath Chirmade
Aged : Major, Occ.- Agriculturist.
2. Vishwanath Sakhram Chirmade,
Aged : 55 years, , Occ.- Agriculturist.
3. Sau. Mahananda Vishwanath Chirmade,
Aged : 50 years, , Occ.- Nil.
4. Sunil Vishwanath Chirmade
Aged : 30 years, , Occ.- Agriculturist.
5. Laxmibai Sunil Chirmade,
Aged : 25 years, , Occ.- Nil.
6. Prakash Vishwanath Chirmade,
Aged : 22 years, , Occ.- Nil.
Applicant 1 to 6 all R/o. Gopwadi,
Pusad, Tah. Pusad, Distt. Yavatmal.
7. Pralhad Shelke,
Aged about 60 years, , Occ.- Nil.
8. Sunil Pralhad Shelke,
Aged about 30 years, , Occ.- Agriculturist.
Applicant 7 and 8 R/o. Tah. Pusad,
Distt. Yavatmal,
Krishna nagar, Pusad. : APPLICANTS
...VERSUS...
1. State of Maharashtra,
through Police Station Officer,
Khandala, Pusad, Tah. Pusad,
District Yavatmal.
J-apl128.20.odt 2/7
2. Sau. Devka alias Sharda Gajanan Chirmade,
Aged about 22 years, Occu.- Nil,
R/o. Gopwadi, C/o. Rangrao Tukaram Vaykule,
R/o. Krishna Nagar,
Distt. Yavatmal. : RESPONDENTS
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Mr. Harshawardhan Chawhan, Advocate for Applicants.
Ms. Sneha Dhote, Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.1.
Mr. Tushar U. Tathod, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE AND
NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATE : 10th NOVEMBER, 2025.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : Urmila Joshi-Phalke, J.)
1. Heard. Admit. Heard finally by consent of learned
counsel appearing for the parties.
2. The present application is filed by the applicants for
quashing of First Information Report in connection with Crime
No.107/2019, registered under Sections 498A, 504, 506 read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and consequent proceeding
arising out of the same R.C.C. No.63/2020.
3. The present applicants are the applicant No.1 is the
husband, applicant Nos.2 and 3 are the in-laws, applicant Nos.4
and 6 are the brothers-in-laws, applicant No.5 sister-in-law,
applicant No.7 is maternal uncle and applicant No.8 is son of
maternal uncle.
4. The crime is registered on the basis of a report lodged
by non-applicant No.2/Devka alias Sharda Gajanan Chirmade on an
allegation that her marriage was performed with applicant No.1 in
the year 2017. After marriage she resumed the co-habitation at the
house of present applicants but on 3.3.2019 she was ill-treated by
the applicant No.1 by demanding an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- for
purchasing the plot and other applicants were instigating the
applicant No.1 and he was ill-treating her. On basis of the said
report Police have registered the crime against the present
applicants.
5. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, who
submitted that omnibus and general allegations are levelled as far
as present applicant Nos.2 to 8 are concerned, no specific instances
are narrated. Even as far as the applicant No.1 is concerned except
the stray instance of dated 3.3.3019 there is nothing on record to
show that he has ill-treated or subjected for ill-treatment for illegal
demands. In fact, the allegations levelled against him is also of
omnibus nature. He submitted that in fact applicant No.5 who is
sister-in-law and applicant Nos.6,7 and 8 are not residing with the
applicant No.1. There is no reason for them to ill-treat her. In fact,
general and omnibus allegations are levelled against him.
6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor and learned
counsel for the respondent No.2 strongly opposed the application
and submitted that considering the nature of the allegations
levelled against the present applicants prima facie case is made out
and, therefore, application deserves to be rejected.
7. Learned counsel for the complainant also endorsed the
same contentions and submitted that considering the allegations of
illegal demand of Rs.1,00,000/- by the applicant No.1, application
deserves to be rejected.
8. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the recitals
of the F.I.R., it reveals that the allegations are wear and tear in
nature. The nature of the allegations is omnibus and general
levelled against the present applicants without any full particulars
about the date, place that all the applicants including her husband
ill-treated her or treated with her cruelty with a demand of money.
There is no specific allegation regarding any one of the applicants
except common and general allegations. As far as husband is
concerned, one stray incident was narrated, but the said allegation
is not of a such a nature that the cruelty caused by the husband and
his family members of a such nature was that it is inflicted with an
intention to cause grave injury or drive her to commit suicide or
inflict grave injury to herself. Such allegations are absent in the
present case.
9. At this stage, reference can be given to the observations
made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Preeti Gupta vs State
of Jharkhand, reported in (2010) 7 SCC 667, wherein the Apex
Court observed in para Nos.30, 32 and 34 as under :
"30. 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 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 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."
10. In the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam vs The State
of Bihar, reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599, wherein also the Hon'ble
Apex Court by taking into consideration the various decisions
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."
11. Recently also, this aspect is considered by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others vs.
State of Telangana and another reported in MANU/SC/1309/2024
wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that it has made clear
that family members of the husband ought not to be unnecessarily
roped into criminal proceedings arising out of matrimonial discord.
The Court observed that it has become a recurring tendency to
implicate every member of the husband's family, irrespective of
their role or actual involvement, merely because a dispute has
arisen between the spouses.
12. In the light of above circumstances and observations of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the present case as the general and
omnibus allegations are levelled against all the applicants. In view
of that, application deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, we
proceed to pass following order :
ORDER
(i) The application is allowed.
(ii) The First Information Report in connection with
Crime No.107/2019, registered under Sections 498A, 504, 506 read
with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and consequent
proceeding arising out of the same R.C.C. No.63/2020 is hereby
quashed and set aside.
(iii) The application is disposed of in the abovesaid
terms.
(Nandesh S. Deshpande, J.) (Urmila Joshi-Phalke, J.)
wadode
Signed by: Mr. Devendra Wadode
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 11/11/2025 18:11:54
