Bombay High Court
Devkrushnarao Rangrao Hive And 5 Others vs State Of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Awdhutwadi ... on 20 November, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:12653-DB
(1) 935. APL1667.22+
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 1667 OF 2022
Chandrabhan Devkrushnarao Hive
Vs.
State Of Maharashtra. Thr. P.S.O., P.S. Awdhutwadi, Yavatmal Tq. And Dist. Yavatmal
And Anr.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 1664 OF 2022
Devkrushnarao Rangrao Hive And Ors.
Vs.
State Of Maharashtra. Thr. P.S.O., P.S. Awdhutwadi, Yavatmal Tq. And Dist. Yavatmal
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. Y. P. Bhelande, Advocate for applicant
Mr. Kunal Dhoble, Advocate for non- applicant no. 2
Mr. M. J. Khan, APP for non-applicant/State
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE AND
NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATED : 20.11.2025
1. Both the applications are filed by the applicants
therein for quashing of the First Information Report, in
connection with Crime No. 1098 of 2022, registered under
Sections 498A, 504, 506, read with Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860.
2. The applicants in the application no. 1614 of 2022 are
the in-laws and other are nearest relatives, whereas the
Criminal Application No. 1617 of 2022 is filed by the
husband.
(2) 935. APL1667.22+
3. The crime is registered against the present applicants
on the basis of report lodged by the informant, Mamta
Chandrabhan Hive, on allegation that her marriage was
performed with the applicant Chandrabhan Devkrishnrao
Hive in the year 2022. After marriage she resume the
cohabitation at the house of the present applicants; at the
relevant time, her husband, along with his parents, her
sister-in-law, were residing together. The applicants were
honoured in the marriage, however, her husband was not
interested in the physical relationship and was avoiding the
same. She further alleged that she was also ask to bring the
5 lakh Rs. from her parents and on that count, she was ill-
treated, abused by the husband as well as the other
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 as far as the applicants in application no.
1614 of 2022 is concerned, general, omnibus and vague
alleagations is levelled. In a concluding fact, no specific
instanced are narrated by the informant. Merely because
they are relatives of the husband, they are implicated in the
alleged offence. He submitted that, as far as the husband is
concerned, against whom also the allegation is baseless,
without stating any specific instances, he also placed on
record the certified copy of the judgment and decree passed
in Petition No. 102 of 2025, wherein the Family Court,
Yavatmal, has passed the decree of dissolution of marriage
(3) 935. APL1667.22+
by mutual consent. He invited our attention towards the
recital of the said decree, wherein it is mentioned that the
applicant husband, Chandrabhan, and the informant have
already settled the matrimonial dispute, and they filed an
application by mutual consent for dissolution of marriage.
She further agreed before the Family Court that she is
inclined to withdraw all the petitions which are pending
before this Court and, by verifying the said contents, the
decree of dissolution of marriage by mutual consent was
passed by the Family Court, Yavatmal. The present
applications were kept pending, but subsequently of passing
of the said decree, the non-applicant no. 2 is avoiding to
attend the proceedings. Despite the various communications
are made by her counsel, also notice is already served on her
of the application, but she remained absent for recording the
settlement in view of the decree passed by the Family Court.
5. Learned APP strongly opposed for the same and
submitted that considering the allegations levelled against
the husband, the prayer of the husband for quashing of the
First Information Report deserves to be rejected. Learned
counsel for the informant also objected for the quashing of
the First Information Report. In view of that, they both
prayed that applications are deserves to be rejected.
6. On hearing both the sides and perusal of the entire
investigation papers, as far as the applicants in application
no. 1614 of 2022 are concerned, admittedly general and
(4) 935. APL1667.22+
omnibus allegations are levelled against them in one
sentence that they have also ill-treated her by demanding
the amount. No specific instances are narrated by the
informant. As far as the husband is concerned, only
allegation against the him is that he was not intending to
have physical relationship with her and also demanding the
amount of Rs. 5 lakh, but she has nowhere specified that
when the such demand was made, as well as she is not also
specified the specific instances of the ill-treatment at the
hands of the husband. More particularly, the conduct of the
non-applicant no. 2 is to be looked into, as the certified copy
of the decree passed by the Family Court shows that by
mutual consent non-applicant no. 2 and the applicant
Chandrabhan filed an application for dissolution of marriage
by the mutual consent. The recitals of the decree shows that
she has withdrawn her rights as far as the property rights are
concerned. She also admitted before the Family Court that
she would not claim any monetary benefits from the present
applicants, she has waived the right of maintenance also,
and subsequently she remained absent before this Court.
Thus, considering the conduct of the non-applicant no. 2,
that she remained absent before this Court for recording the
further consideration as far as the compromise is concerned,
and considering the facts and circumstances of the present
case that no specific allegations are levelled against the
present applicants, as far as the ill-treatment is concerned,
the observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Preeti Gupta and another Vs. State of Jharkhand , reported in
(5) 935. APL1667.22+
2010 (7) SCC 667, wherein it is held that the allegation of
harassment by the husband's close relations, who have been
living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the
place where the complainant wife resided, would have an
entirely different complexion, such allegations of the
complainant are required to be scrutinise with great care
and circumspection. This aspect is further considered by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dara Lakshmi Narayan
and Others vs. State of Telangana and Others, reported in
MANU/SC/1309/2024, wherein it is observed by Hon'ble
Apex Court that the family members of the husband ought
not to be unnecessarily roped into criminal proceedings
arising out of matrimonial discord. Here it appears that the
matrimonial discord was there subsequently, and the
applicant and non-applicant no. 2 both have settled the
dispute; in view of that settlement, the decree of dissolution
of marriage is already passed. In view of that, both the
applications are deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, we
proceed to pass the following order:-
ORDER
(i) Application No. 1614/2022 and 1667/2022 are
allowed.
(ii) The First Information Report in connection with Crime
No. 1098/2022 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.
(6) 935. APL1667.22+
99/2023 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First
Class, Yavatmal is hereby quashed and set aside to the extent
of the present applicants.
(iii) Both the applications are disposed of.
(NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.) (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)
Shubham
