Bombay High Court
Sachin Narayan Sarode And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 25 November, 2025
Author: Manish Pitale
Bench: Manish Pitale
2025:BHC-AS:51336-DB
1
18 WP.1098.2020 a.w. connected WPs.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1098 OF 2020
1. Sachin Narayan Sarode, }
Age- 39 years, Occupation-Service }
2. Rohini Sachin Sarode, Age- 37 }
years Occupation- Housewife }
Both Residing at Room No. 9, }
Siddivinyak Blossom Durga Nagar, }
Kamaltwada, Nasik 422 008 } ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra }
Through the Police Inspector, }
Wakad Police Station, Pune. }
(Respondent No. 1 to be served }
through Public Prosecutor, High }
Court of Bombay, Mumbai ) }
2. Sushma Sachin Barhate, }
Age - 38 Years, Residing at 302 }
Ruby Building, Tanishq, Survey }
No. 18/07, Opp Ratnadeep }
Colony Saijyoti Hospital, Dange }
Chowk, Thergaon, Pune } ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 641 OF 2020
1.Roshan Ravindra Barhate, }
Age-39 years, Occupation-Business}
2. Gayatri Roshan Barhate, }
Age-34 Years, Occupation-Business}
Both Residing at C 301, Shivram }
Nagar Society, Govind Nagar, }
Nasik 422 009 } ... Petitioners
Rajeshri Aher
::: Uploaded on - 26/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 26/11/2025 20:52:10 :::
2
18 WP.1098.2020 a.w. connected WPs.doc
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra }
Through the Police Inspector, }
Wakad Police Station, Pune. }
(Respondent No. 1 to be served }
through Public Prosecutor, High }
Court of Bombay, Mumbai) }
2. Sushma Sachin Barhate, }
Age - 38 Years, Residing at 302 }
Ruby Building, Tanishq, Survey }
No. 18/07, Opp Ratnadeep }
Colony Saijyoti Hospital, Dange }
Chowk, Thergaon, Pune } ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 5049 OF 2019
1. Madhuri Manohar Bhole, }
Age-37 years, Occupation-Business}
Residing at C2 604, Panvelkar }
Campus, Lakhamale Nagar, Beh- }
ind Bethel Church, Kohojgaon, }
Ambernath West, 421505 }
2. Usha Manohar Bhole }
Age-54 Years, Occupation-House- }
wife }
3. Manohar Sadashiv Bhole, }
Age 63 years, Occupation-Retired }
4. Bhavesh Manohar Bhole, }
Age-23 years, Occupation-Student }
All 2 to 4 Residing at ASG- 67, }
Matoshree, Ashwini Sector, CIDCO}
Colony, Nasik 422 009 } ... Petitioners
Versus
Rajeshri Aher
::: Uploaded on - 26/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 26/11/2025 20:52:10 :::
3
18 WP.1098.2020 a.w. connected WPs.doc
1. The State of Maharashtra }
Through the Police Inspector, }
Wakad Police Station, Pune. }
(Respondent No. 1 to be served }
through Public Prosecutor, High }
Court of Bombay, Mumbai) }
2. Sushma Sachin Barhate, }
Age - 38 Years, Residing at 302 }
Ruby Building, Tanishq, Survey }
No. 18/07, Opp Ratnadeep }
Colony Saijyoti Hospital, Dange }
Chowk, Thergaon, Pune } ... Respondents
******
Mr. Manoj Gadkari, for the Petitioner in all Petitions.
Ms Sangita Phad, APP, for Respondent-State in all Petitions.
Ms Vrunda Surve, for Respondent No. 2 in all Petitions.
******
CORAM : MANISH PITALE AND
MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATE : 25th NOVEMBER 2025
JUDGMENT (PER : MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.) :
. All the three writ petitions are heard together and are also
decided by this common judgment, Since they arise out of one and the
same FIR i.e FIR No. 0729 of 2019, alleging offences under Sections
498-A, 494, 323, 504, 506, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC")
against the petitioners, registered on 28 June 2019 at Wakad Police
Station, Pimpri-Chinchwad, Pune.
2. The respondent no.2 complainant has filed FIR against her
husband accused No.1 and 9 other relatives alleging to have
committed aforementioned offences.
Rajeshri Aher
18 WP.1098.2020 a.w. connected WPs.doc
3. The gist of the complaint filed by respondent no.2 is that the
marriage between the accused no.1 Sachin Barhate and the
respondent no.2 was solemnized on 22 nd April, 2007, after which she
resided with accused no.1 and his mother (accused no.2) at
Rajvaibhav Apartment, Opposite Anandwadi Police Chowki, Kalyan
(East), District-Thane. It is further alleged that although her sister-in-
law, Rohini Sarode (accused No. 5), and her husband, Sachin Sarode
(accused No. 6), resided at Nashik, they frequently visited the
complainant's matrimonial home. When she developed ulcers and was
physically unfit to perform domestic chores, she was allegedly
compelled by her mother-in-law, sister-in-law, and the sister-in-law's
husband to continue to do household work. When she refused, she
was allegedly taunted and abused. When she complained about it to
her husband, he ignored it. In fact, he taunted her and expressed that
he no longer wished to live with her.
4. During her visit to Pune for her brother's house-warming
ceremony, the accused no.1 refused to take her back with him, and
avoided her request to accompany him. He also gave threats of
performing second marriage after getting a divorce from her.
5. When the uncle of the husband who was mediator in settling
their marriage, tried to mediate, she was informed that her husband
had demanded Rs.1,90,000/- towards delivery expenses, treatment for
her ulcers, and other costs. He further imposed a condition that she
should sever all ties with her maternal relatives for seven years. When
she refused to accept this condition, her husband allegedly began to
threaten her and demanded a divorce. He also instituted divorce
Rajeshri Aher
18 WP.1098.2020 a.w. connected WPs.doc
proceedings in 2009 before the Kalyan Court. In the meanwhile, she
gave birth to a baby boy on 18 th July 2009, and has since been
residing with her brother, maintaining the child on her own.
6. It is stated that the divorce proceedings instituted by her
husband before the Kalyan Court were transferred to the Family Court
at Pune, and were dismissed vide order dated 29 th August 2013. She
later learnt that, despite dismissal of the divorce petition, her husband
had contracted a second marriage with a lady named Madhuri Bhole.
7. When she went to her matrimonial house in Kalyan to verify the
fact of her husband's second marriage, her brother-in-law, Roshan
Barhate (Accused No. 3), her sister-in-law, Gayatri Barhate (Accused
No. 4), and their daughter were residing in the house. When she
inquired about her husband, they informed her that her husband,
Sachin, had performed second marriage and demanded that she leave
their house and return to her maternal home. She, however, refused to
leave. After two days, the parents-in-law of Roshan Barhate (Accused
No. 3) came to the house and attempted to drive her (Respondent No.
2) out. They also accused Roshan and Gayatri of ruining the life of
Madhuri (Accused No. 7), and instigated Roshan and Gayatri to evict
the complainant from their house. In response to these events, the
complainant filed a complaint on 11th April 2014 at Kolshewadi Police
Station, Kalyan.
8. It is further stated that the complainant had filed a domestic
violence complaint seeking permission to reside in Flat No. 302,
Rajvaibhav Apartment, Kolshewadi, Kalyan (East), which was granted
by the Court. Despite this order, her husband Sachin, along with his
Rajeshri Aher
18 WP.1098.2020 a.w. connected WPs.doc
second wife Madhuri Bhole and his mother, began residing in the flat
and restrained her from entering it. She also filed an NC against her
husband and his second wife on 8th March 2014. While she was away
at Pune, the interior of the bathroom and kitchen of the house was
damaged, and household items were removed and moved to a house
owned by Madhuri at Ambernath, as reported to her by her neighbors.
When she visited the flat to verify this information, Bhavesh Bhole
(accused no.10), brother of Madhuri Bhole, verbally abused her and
forcibly drove her out by threatening her. This incident was reported
at Ambernath Police Station on 5th November 2016. Based on these
allegations, the complainant has filed the FIR against Accused Nos. 1
to 10 on 28th June 2019 at Wakad Police station, Pune.
9. Except for Accused No. 1 (husband) and Accused No. 2
(mother-in-law), none of the petitioners have ever resided with
Respondent No. 2. When Writ Petition No. 1098 of 2020 was heard on
19th January 2020, an order was passed directing it "to be heard with
Writ Petition No. 5094 of 2019." When Writ Petition No. 5094 of
2019 was listed on 4th December 2019, while issuing notice, this Court
directed that, although the investigation may continue, no charge
sheet shall be filed. On 2nd February 2023, when Writ Petition
No. 1098 of 2020 was heard, the Learned APP informed that, charge
sheet had already been filed. Liberty was granted to place the charge
sheet on record. Thereafter, the matter was listed before the Court on
several occasions. On 24th March 2025, when both writ petitions were
listed before this Court, it was observed that there were hardly any
allegations against petitioners Rohini and Sachin Sarode. Except for
the allegation against Sachin, there were virtually no allegations
Rajeshri Aher
18 WP.1098.2020 a.w. connected WPs.doc
against the other petitioners. Even the other wife, Madhuri, could not
be said to have committed an offence under Section 498A of the IPC.
After making above observations, this Court directed that the trial
Court shall not proceed against both the petitioners. Thereafter, the
interim relief granted on earlier dates was continued from time to
time.
10. We have heard all the respective counsel for the petitioner and
the respondents. Since all the three writ petitions are clubbed
together, the allegations made against each of the petitioners who are
accused in the FIR will have to be considered independently.
Therefore, it would be convenient to deal with the allegations and the
role of the petitioners in each of the petitions one by one:
11. In Writ Petition No. 1098 of 2020, it is submitted by Mr. Manoj
Gadkari, learned counsel for the petitioners, that Petitioner No. 1,
Sachin Narayan Sarode (husband of the complainant's sister-in-law),
and Petitioner No. 2, Rohini Sachin Sarode (sister-in-law of the
complainant), are the original Accused Nos. 5 and 6 in the FIR. In the
complaint itself, the Respondent No. 2 has categorically stated that she
was residing with her husband and mother-in-law at Kalyan, while
Accused Nos. 5 and 6, though residing in Nashik, frequently visited
her matrimonial house. On this background the Respondent No. 2 has
made bold and baseless allegations against the petitioners without
specifying the date, place or time alleging that the petitioners have
forced her to do domestic work while she was suffering from ulcers.
This, according to learned advocate for the petitioners, does not
attract ingredients of any of the offenses alleged against them.
Rajeshri Aher
18 WP.1098.2020 a.w. connected WPs.doc
12. It is further submitted that since the petitioners were residing in
Nashik, it is impossible that they could have ill-treated the
complainant, and in any case, merely asking her to do household work
while she was unwell does not amount to any offence. Similarly,
Section 494 of the IPC cannot be made applicable to the petitioners.
Even otherwise, the Respondent No. 2 has already filed a private
complaint bearing No. R.C.C. 322 of 2014, pending before the Judicial
Magistrate, First Class, Pune.
13. Mr. Manoj Gadkari, learned counsel for the petitioners, in Writ
Petition No. 5049 of 2019, further submits that Petitioner No. 1,
Madhuri Manohar Bhole, is the alleged second wife of Accused No. 1;
Petitioner No. 2, Usha Manohar Bhole, is Accused No. 8 and the
mother of Petitioner No. 1; Petitioner No. 3, Manohar Bhole, is
Accused No. 9 and the father of Petitioner No. 1; Petitioner No. 4,
Bhavesh Bhole, is Accused No. 10 and the brother of Petitioner No. 1
in the FIR. The learned counsel submits that the allegations against
Petitioner No. 1 arise from her alleged second marriage to the Accused
No. 1 without dissolution of his first marriage. When the complainant
visited her matrimonial home to verify the fact of the second marriage
and remained there for two days, the parents of her brother-in-law
quarreled with him, alleging that they had ruined the life of Madhuri,
and demanded that Accused Nos. 3 and 4 immediately removed the
complainant from the house. These are the allegations leveled against
Accused Nos. 8 and 9. As regards Accused No. 10, the allegation is
that when the complainant visited the house of Petitioner No. 1 at
Rajeshri Aher
18 WP.1098.2020 a.w. connected WPs.doc
Ambernath, Accused No. 10 was present and allegedly threatened,
abused, and drove the complainant out of the house. The allegations
under Section 498A relate only to Accused No. 1, and even those do
not constitute a cognizable offence. No other offences as alleged are
made out against the present petitioners. From the perusal of the FIR,
it is apparent that the allegations against the petitioners are motivated
by malice and ulterior intent. None of the offences alleged against the
petitioners are sustainable as cognizable offences. If this Court does
not interfere, it would result in a miscarriage of justice. Therefore, the
FIR insofar as it concerns the petitioners deserves to be quashed and
set aside.
14. On the background of these allegations it is submitted that the
petitioners have been falsely implicated by the complainant to wreak
vengeance on Accused No. 1. None of the petitioners are related to the
husband of the complainant who is Accused No. 1 hence ingredients
of Section 498A of IPC are not attracted in the case of petitioners.
Section 498A is applicable only to the husband or relatives of the
husband. Since the petitioners are not relatives of the husband,
Section 498A is not applicable to them, even Section 494 of the IPC
being an offense against marriage is not applicable to the petitioners.
It is therefore submitted that even the rest of the offenses are not
attracted in the case of the petitioners. The FIR itself is motivated by
malice and ulterior motives.
15. As regards the Petitioners in W.P. No. 641 of 2020 are
concerned, Mr. Manoj Gadkari, learned counsel for the petitioners
Rajeshri Aher
18 WP.1098.2020 a.w. connected WPs.doc
submits that, Roshan Ravindra Barhate, Petitioner No. 1, is the
husband of the complainant's sister-in-law and is Accused No. 3,
whereas Petitioner No. 2, Gayatri Roshan Barhate, Accused No. 4. is
the complainant's sister-in-law, The only allegation against the
petitioners is that, though they are residing at Nashik, on their
occasional visit to the complainant's matrimonial house, they have
allegedly forced the complainant to perform household work when
she was suffering from an ulcer and also abused her on her refusal to
do the work.
16. It is submitted that the complainant has provided no specific
details regarding the alleged incidents and has made vague and
omnibus allegations, apparently to pressurize and harass Accused Nos.
1 and 2 by implicating their relatives. The petitioners have been
falsely implicated, which is evident from the fact that they do not
reside at Kalyan but at Nashik. Even the complainant, in her
complaint, has stated that their usual place of residence is Nashik,
which makes the allegations highly improbable. Thus, none of the
offences can be said to be attracted against the petitioners.
17. It is therefore prayed by the learned advocate appearing for the
petitioners that all the petitioners have been falsely implicated by the
complainant merely to get even with accused no 1 and are used to
exert pressure on the accused no. 1. None of the ingredients of
Sections 498A, 494, 323, 504, 506, and 34 of the IPC are made out by
the complainant in the FIR filed by her. The FIR is vague and devoid of
any details. The registration of the FIR against the petitioners violates
the principle that criminal prosecution should not be used to harass or
Rajeshri Aher
18 WP.1098.2020 a.w. connected WPs.doc
seek revenge. No ingredients of Section 498-A or any other cognizable
offence are disclosed in the complaint. Therefore, the FIR registered
against the petitioners deserves to be quashed and set aside.
18. The learned APP, while opposing the prayers of the petitioners in
all the writ petitions, has contended that specific roles have been
attributed to each petitioner in the complaint filed by Respondent No.
2. While it is an admitted position of law that an FIR is not an
encyclopedia and only serves as an intimation of the commission of an
offence. The complaint narrates incidents involving each accused and
their participation in the alleged offences attributing specific roles to
each of the accused, and therefore there is no substance in the
contention of the petitioner that the FIR is bereft of details. It is the
contention of the learned APP that the investigation has already been
completed and the chargesheet has been filed; hence, this Court may
not interfere in the present proceedings filed against the petitioners.
19. Ms. Vrunda Surve, learned counsel representing Respondent
No. 2, submits that a common affidavit has been filed in all the writ
petitions. It is submitted that the writ petitions are replete with
suppression of material facts and, therefore, they deserve to be
dismissed in limine. She contends that the petitioners herein are
perpetrators and abettors of continuing offences, including bigamy,
cruelty, criminal intimidation, and economic abuse, and thus are not
entitled to equitable relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.
20. It is further contended that the complainant was subjected to
continuous physical and mental cruelty by the petitioners. Despite the
Rajeshri Aher
18 WP.1098.2020 a.w. connected WPs.doc
subsistence of her marriage, Accused No. 1 contracted a second
marriage with Accused No. 7, which constitutes an offence under
Section 494 of the IPC. The second wife, being the elder sister of
Accused No. 4, was fully aware of the existence of the first marriage of
Accused No. 1; yet, Accused No. 7 proceeded to marry Accused No. 1,
which in itself amounts to an offence.
21. She has also made various averments regarding the proceedings
pending between Accused No. 1 and herself, including her private
complaint concerning the second marriage, the domestic violence
complaint, and the divorce proceedings. She further submits that She
has filed Miscellaneous Application No. 79 of 2025 under Section
156(3) of the CR.P.C. before the Kalyan Court, seeking directions for
the registration of an FIR against Accused No. 1 and his business
partner. Various allegations have been made against all the accused to
contend that the present writ petitions deserve to be dismissed, as the
accused are allegedly misusing the judicial process as a counterblast to
the lawful proceedings initiated by the complainant under Sections
498A, 494, 323, 504, 506, and 34 of IPC, and also proceedings
initiated Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. for maintenance.
22. We have heard the parties at length and also perused the
documents on record. Bare perusal of the FIR makes it apparent that
in the matrimonial dispute between the Accused No.1 Sachin Barhate
and the complainant Sushma Sachin Barhate, all the relatives of
Accused No.1 have been embroiled by the complainant. As regards
petitioners, in Writ Petition No.1098 of 2020, they are brother-in-law
and sister of Accused No. 1. The allegations made against them are
that they have abused and forced the complainant when she failed to
Rajeshri Aher
18 WP.1098.2020 a.w. connected WPs.doc
discharge her domestic obligations This per se would not attract
Section 498A of the IPC 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 purpose 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."
23. The essential ingredients of Section 498A of IPC are that the
husband or the relatives of the husband commit an act of 'cruelty'
against a woman, for which they are liable for imprisonment of up to
three years. The term 'cruelty' as contained in Section 498A of IPC has
been explained to mean such conduct which is likely to drive the
complainant to commit suicide, or harassment with a view to meet
any unlawful demand for property or valuable security. The conduct of
the petitioners does not fall within the scope of 'cruelty' as defined
under Section 498A of the IPC.
24. Similarly, Section 494 of the IPC, provides for punishment of
seven years with fine for whoever having a husband or wife marries
again during his/her lifetime during subsistence of such marriage. It is
Rajeshri Aher
18 WP.1098.2020 a.w. connected WPs.doc
explicitly clear from reading the section itself that Section 494 of IPC
applies to the husband and/or wife who commits an offence by
marrying again during the subsistence of the valid marriage. Hence,
Section 494 of IPC will not be attracted in case of any of the
petitioners in the present group of writ petitions.
25. The other offences alleged are under Section 323 of the IPC,
which deals with voluntarily causing hurt. There is no specific
allegation against any of the petitioners that they voluntarily caused
hurt to the complainant; no incident has been narrated by the
complainant in support of her allegations under Section 323 IPC. We
are further surprised to note that the complainant has invoked
Sections 504 and 506 of IPC. Section 504 of IPC, which deals with
intentional insult with intent to provoke a breach of the peace, is a
non-cognizable and bailable offence. Similarly, Section 506 of IPC,
which deals with criminal intimidation, is also non-cognizable and
bailable. Neither of these offences is made out against the petitioners
from the complainant's complaint.
The aforementioned observations are squarely applicable to
Writ Petition No. 614 of 2020, involving Roshan Ravindra Barhate and
Gayatri Roshan Barhate, who are Accused No. 3 and 4. Though they
may fall within the definition of 'relative of the husband,' the
allegations against them do not amount to 'cruelty' as defined in the
explanation to Section 498A of IPC. As regards the remaining Sections
494, 323, 504, 506, and 34 of the IPC, we are of the view that, since
the allegations against them are bereft of any details, none of the
offences alleged against them are made out.
Rajeshri Aher
18 WP.1098.2020 a.w. connected WPs.doc
26. The petitioners in Writ Petition No. 5049 of 2019 are Accused
Nos. 7 to 10, who include the alleged second wife of Accused No. 1,
her parents, and her brother. The complaint alleges that the parents of
Accused No. 7 insisted that the other accused to drive the complainant
out of the house, while Accused No. 10 did not allow her to enter the
house and allegedly abused her. However, these allegations do not
specify the date, place, or time of the incidents. As far as Accused
No. 7 is concerned, the only allegation against her is that, with full
knowledge that Accused No. 1 is married to the complainant, she has
married him. Apart from this, there are no other allegations against
her. Although it is the contention of Respondent No. 2 that Section
494 of IPC would be applicable to Accused No. 7, the fact remains that
complainant has already filed a private complaint against Accused No.
1. As observed hereinabove, Section 494 of IPC is not applicable to a
third person, since it is an offence committed by a person who marries
during subsistence of earlier marriage.
27. All the allegations in the FIR are general and vague, lacking
specific dates, times, or incidents that reflect criminal conduct. It
appears that after marriage, on 22nd April 2007, the relationship
between the couple was initially amicable, but relations soured over
time. The complainant subsequently filed various proceedings against
Accused No. 1 and other relatives, seemingly to retaliate against
Accused No. 1. From the averments in the FIR itself, it is evident that
the complainant was living with her husband and mother-in-law after
marriage, and none of the other relatives resided with them regularly.
The husband filed divorce proceedings in 2009 before the Court at
Kalyan, and since then, they have been living separately. Therefore,
Rajeshri Aher
18 WP.1098.2020 a.w. connected WPs.doc
the only persons against whom the complainant could be said to have
a real grievance are Accused No. 1 (husband) and, to some extent,
Accused No. 2 (mother-in-law). Implicating all other accused amounts
to an abuse of the penal provisions and appears to be a counterblast
against the family members for the conduct of Accused No. 1, who
married a second time without obtaining a decree of divorce from the
first marriage.
28. In a recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Dara Laxmi Narayani and Ors. Vs. State of Telangana and Ors. 1, The
Hon'ble Supreme Court had an occasion to deal with the issue of
quashing an FIR under Section 498A of IPC against the relatives of the
accused. In this judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, by referring to
the celebrated judgment of State of Haryana V. Bhajanlal2, held that
the case of the petitioners therein would fall within Category 7 of the
illustrative guidelines laid down in the said judgment.
29. However, in the present case, we find that the cases of all the
petitioners stand squarely covered by Categories (1) and (7) of the
illustrative guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
judgment of Bhajanlal (supra). While interpreting various relevant
provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure under Chapter XIV, and
in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of extraordinary powers
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C., the Supreme Court provided these illustrative guidelines.
Categories (1) and (7) of the illustrations, as given in paragraph 102
of the judgment, are reproduced herein below, which read as follows:
1 2025 (3) SCC 735
2 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
Rajeshri Aher
18 WP.1098.2020 a.w. connected WPs.doc
"(1) Where the allegations made in the first information
report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face
value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie
constitute any offence or make out a case against the
accused.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended
with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance
on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private
and personal grudge."
30. While delivering the judgment in case of Dara Laxmi Narayani
(supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has once again reiterated that
there is a rising tendency in women to abuse the process of law, by
registering FIR against innocent family members of the husband
without specific allegations indicating their active involvement, which
requires to be nipped in the bud. It is held that generalized and
sweeping allegations unsupported by concrete evidence cannot form
the basis for criminal prosecution. The Courts must therefore exercise
caution in such cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions and legal
process to avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent family members.
Reference is also made to the judgment in case of Preeti Gupta Vs.
State of Jharkhand3, wherein it is held by the Hon'ble Supreme court
that the court has to be extremely careful and must take pragmatic
realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The
allegations of harassment by the husband and close relatives, who
have been living in different cities, who never visit or merely visit
where the complainant resides have an entirely different complexion.
Such allegations are required to be scrutinized with great care and
circumspection.
3 2010 7 SCC 667
Rajeshri Aher
18 WP.1098.2020 a.w. connected WPs.doc
31. In our opinion, the observations made in the case of Preeti
Gupta (supra) are squarely applicable to the present case. Though we
are aware that the jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has to be
exercised sparingly and only in deserving cases, in our view, this is a
fit case for the exercise of such discretion, as the allegations made
against the petitioners in all three writ petitions are vague and
omnibus, bereft of any specific date, time, or place. The alleged
offences are not made out, as the ingredients of the respective
offences are not attracted to the incidents narrated in the FIR.
Therefore, in our view, if the proceedings against the petitioners
are allowed to continue, the petitioners would be unnecessarily
made to face prosecution, which is nothing short of an abuse of
process of law and travesty of justice. Hence, in our view this is a fit
case to quash the FIR bearing C.R. No. 729 of 2019, filed with Wakad
Police Station, Pimpri-Chinchwad, Pune, under Sections 498A, 494,
323, 504, 506 r/w Section 34 of the IPC against the Petitioners.
Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are allowed and the said FIR and
consequential proceedings are quashed as against the petitioners.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.
Digitally
signed by
RAJESHRI
RAJESHRI PRAKASH
PRAKASH AHER
AHER Date:
2025.11.26
20:20:24
+0530 (MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.)
Rajeshri Aher
