Bombay High Court
Pratibha Surendra Wanjari And 6 Others vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Ps ... on 12 November, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:11925-DB
905-apl642.24.odt 1/8
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) No.642 OF 2024
(Pratibha Surendra Wanjari and others Vs. State of Maharashtra, through PSO, PS
Nandanvan, Distt. Nagpur 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. N.B. Bargat, Advocate for applicants.
Mrs. Sneha Dhote, APP for respondent/non-applicant No.1.
Ms. Sakshi Tiwari, Advocate for respondent/non-applicant No.2.
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE AND
NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATE : 12th NOVEMBER, 2025.
1. The present application is preferred by the
applicants under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code
for quashing of First Information Report in connection with
Crime No.464/2022, registered with Police Station Nandanvan,
Nagpur for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 323,
341, 500, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code and the consequent proceeding arising out of the same
Charge-sheet bearing R.C.C. No.1770/2023 pending in the
Court of 4th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division and Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Nagpur.
2. The applicant Nos.1 and 2 are the wife and
husband, applicant No.3 is daughter of applicant Nos.1 and 2,
applicant No.4 and 5 are wife and husband and applicant
Nos. 6 and 7 are the daughter and son of the brother in law of
the informant.
3. As per her allegations that her marriage was
905-apl642.24.odt 2/8
performed with one Devidas Wanjari on 14.2.2005. After
marriage she resumed co-habitation at the house of present
applicants. Her husband died on 14.3.2022 due to the illness.
She was residing along with her in-laws and other family
members and her husband was running a business by name
"Hira Electricals". After the death of her husband all the
applicants started ill-treating her by suspecting her character,
they were not allowing her to enter into the kitchen and for
various reasons, she was ill-treated and insisted for giving
signatures on blank papers, also not providing her monetary
expenses for the education of her daughter. On the basis of
said report Police have registered the crime against the present
applicants.
4. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, who
submitted that as far as the allegations levelled against the
present applicants are concerned which are omnibus, baseless
and no specific instances are narrated by the informant as far as
the ill-treatment at the hands of the present applicants are
concerned. He submitted that everything revolves around the
property dispute as there is property dispute between the
non-applicant No.2 and the other applicants. Therefore, this
false First Information Report is lodged. He invited our
attention towards the previous complaint filed by the
father-in-law that she was insisting for partition of the
properties as well as threatened them and also taken forceful
possession of the said shop with the help of relatives. The said
complaint was lodged by the father-in-law on 27.5.2022. He
has also further invited our attention towards another First
Information Report bearing Crime No.122/2024 lodged by the
905-apl642.24.odt 3/8
father-in-law alleging against the present non-applicant No.2
that she forcefully entered into the shop and tried to take
possession of the said shop and also abused in filthy language
with the help of her relatives. He submitted that merely
because there is property dispute and the family members are
implicated in the alleged offence on the basis of general and
omnibus allegations. He submitted that even if the allegations
are taken as it is at the face value which are not sufficient to
attract the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian
Penal Code. The offences under Sections 323, 341, 500, 504
and 506 of I.P.C. are also not made out out. He further invited
our attention towards the fact that the applicant No.3 is
residing at Pune and she has no concern as far as the allegation
of ill-treatment is concerned. So, he submitted that considering
the nature of allegations which is general and omnibus in
nature only to implicate present applicants in the false First
Information Report and, therefore, the application deserves to
be allowed and the First Information Report deserves to be
quashed.
5. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
strongly opposed the said application and submitted that
considering that the non-applicant No.2 is widow, she was
residing in the said house after the death of her husband, she
was ill-treated to such an extent that it was difficult for her to
survive and, therefore, she forced to lodge the complaint.
There is specific role attributed to the present applicants and,
therefore, the application deserves to be rejected. Learned
counsel for the complainant also endorsed the same
contentions.
905-apl642.24.odt 4/8
6. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the entire
investigation papers, there is no dispute as to the fact that the
non-applicant No.2 is the widow of deceased son of one
Ratnakar Khemaji Wanjari. The said Ratnakar Khemaji Wanjari
has lodged a report against the non-applicant No.2 much prior
to the First Information Report dated 27.5.2022 alleging that
the non-applicant No.2 with the help of her relatives harassing
all the family members by threatening them to implicate them
in the case. The subsequent First Information Report is also
filed by said Ratnakar Wanjari alleging against the present
non-applicant No.2 that she forcefully entered into the shop by
breaking the lock of the said shop and tried to take possession
of the said shop which is a family business of the applicants.
The various statements of the witnesses are recorded, even the
statements of the neighbours are also recorded, the statements
of the neighbours nowhere discloses as far as the harassment at
the hands of present applicants to the informant are concerned.
Admittedly, the neighbours are the best witnesses regarding the
treatment to the non-applicant No.2 at the hands of present
applicants. From the entire investigation papers it reveals that
the property dispute is between the non-applicant No.2 and the
other family members and that may be the reason for
non-applicant No.2 to lodge the report against the present
applicants. These allegations are to be looked into in the light
of the previous complaints filed by father-in-law i.e. Ratnakar
Wanjari against the present non-applicant No.2.
7. Even accepting the allegations as it is at its face
value admittedly no specific instances or the incidents are
narrated by the non-applicant No.2 regarding nature of
905-apl642.24.odt 5/8
harassment at the hands of present applicants. At this stage,
reference can be given to Section 498A, which 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 purposes
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."
8. On perusal of the entire allegations levelled against
the present applicants admittedly the allegations are omnibus,
general and vague in nature.
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
905-apl642.24.odt 6/8
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
905-apl642.24.odt 7/8
against the relatives and in-laws of the
husband when no prima facie case is made
out against them."
11. In the light of the abovesaid observations if the facts
of the present case are are taken into consideration admittedly
the allegations levelled against the present applicants which are
general in nature and nowhere it shows that the willful conduct
was there on the part of the present applicant which is of such a
nature as is likely to drive the non-applicant No.2 to commit
suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb or
health (whether mental or physical). Clause (b) of Section 498A
expands scope of the term to include harassment with a view to
coercing the woman or relative to meet any unlawful demand.
No such allegations are also levelled against the present
applicants.
12. In view of that, the application deserves to be
allowed. Accordingly, we proceed to pass following order :
ORDER
(i) The application is allowed.
(ii) First Information Report in connection
with Crime No.464/2022, registered with Police Station
Nandanvan, Nagpur for the offence punishable under Sections
498A, 323, 341, 500, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code and the consequent proceeding arising out of
the same Charge-sheet bearing R.C.C. No.1770/2023 pending in
the Court of 4th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division and Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Nagpur to the extent of present applicants
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: 13/11/2025 10:51:19
