Bombay High Court
Aniket S/O Anurath Surnar And 4 Others vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Its Pso, ... on 25 November, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:12941-DB
(1) 945.APL1731.24
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 1731 OF 2024
Aniket Anurath Surnar & Ors.
Vs.
State of Maharashtra,Thr. Its P.S.O., Police Station- Gadchiroli, Dist. Gadchiroli & Anr.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. P. V. Ghare, Advocate for applicant
Mr. S. D. Chande and Mr. Sunil Kulkarni, Advocate for non-applicant no. 2
Ms. Swati Kolhe, APP for non-applicant/State
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE AND
NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATED : 25.11.2025
1. Present application is preferred by the applicants
under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, for
quashing of the First Information Report in connection with
Crime No. 434/2024 registered under Section 498A, 323,
504, 506, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860, and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
2. The applicant no. 1 is the husband, applicant no. 2 is
mother-in-law, applicant no. 3 is the maternal uncle and
applicant nos. 4 and 5 are sisters-in-law.
3. Crime is registered on the basis of report lodged by
the non-applicant no. 2, on an allegation that her marriage
was performed with the applicant no. 1, and after marriage
she resumed co-habitation at the house of the present
(2) 945.APL1731.24
applicants. At that time, applicant no. 2 to 4 were residing in
joint family. It is alleged that the applicant no. 5 is serving as
a Talathi, and she used to be contact with the other
applicants. As per her allegations, her husband was
harassing her by subjecting her for the forceful sexual
assault in a unnatural way. He also ill-treated her by
demanding the unlawful demands, and on the instigation of
the other applicants. She alleged that the applicant no. 2 to
5 used to ill-treat her by taunting her on various reasons,
and therefore, she constrained to leave the matrimonial
house. 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 applicant no. 1 is concerned, he
is withdrawing the application, and as far as the applicant
no. 2 to 5 are concerned, general allegations are levelled
against them, merely because they are the relatives of the
applicant no. 1 husband. He invited our attention towards
the statements of the witnesses and submitted that no
specific instances are narrated by the informant as far as to
substantiate the allegations regarding the demand of money
and ill-treatment at the hands of the applicant no. 2 to 5.
The allegation appears to be there merely because they are
the close relatives of the applicant no. 1. He submitted that
to attract Section 498A of IPC, which prescribes punishment
were a women is subjected to cruelty by her husband or his
relatives. The offence is punishable with imprisonment for a
(3) 945.APL1731.24
term which may extend to three years and also provides for
fine. The explanation appended to the provision defines
cruelty in two parts:
(a) refers to willful conduct which is of such nature as is
likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause
grave injury or danger to her life or limb or health, whether
mental or physical;
(b) expands the scope of the term to include harassment
with a view to coercing the woman or her relatives to meet
any unlawful demand for property or valuable security, or on
account of failure to meet such demand.
5. He submitted that, in view of the above legal
provisions, if the allegations are taken at its face value, no
prima facie case is made out against the present applicants.
In view of that, the application deserves to be allowed.
6. Per contra, learned APP strongly opposed the same
and submitted that, considering the allegation levelled
against the present applicants, which is specific, the prima
facie case is made out. Learned counsel for the complainant
endorsed the same contentions.
7. On hearing both the sides and perusal of the entire
investigation papers, at its face value, the allegation as far as
the applicant no. 2 to 5 are concerned, appears to be
(4) 945.APL1731.24
omnibus and general in nature. No specific instances are
narrated as far as the instigation on the part of the applicant
no. 2 to 5 are concerned. Admittedly, the applicant no. 4 and
5 are already married, and they are residing at their
matrimonial house. There is no occasion for them to visit the
house of the informant and her husband unless there is an
any occasion for them. As far as the applicant no. 2 is
concerned, she is also residing separately. On perusal of the
entire First Information Report, as well as the various
statements of the witnesses, as far as the applicant no. 2 to 5
are concerned, admittedly, no specific instances are narrated
either in the First Information Report on in a subsequent
statement. It is apparent that they are implicated merely
because they are the close relatives of the applicant no. 1
husband. As far as the applicant no. 1 husband is concerned,
for whom the learned counsel for the applicant has already
withdrawn the application. A careful scrutiny of the charge
sheet shows that the statement of the informant, wherein all
the allegations are omnibus, stereotype, and not stating any
particulars about the ill-treatment and of money.
8. At this stage, reference can be given to the
observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter
of Preeti Gupta and another Vs. State of Jharkhand,
reported in 2010 (7) SCC 667 wherein the Hon'ble Apex
Court observed in the paragraph no. 30, 32 and 34 as
under :-
(5) 945.APL1731.24
"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 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 visualised by the complainant that
such complaint can lead to insurmountable
harassment, agony and pain to the complainant,
accused and his close relations"
9. In another case Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam vs. The
State of Bihar, reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599, the Hon'ble
Apex Court after taking a stock of various decisions rendered
by the Hon'ble Apex Court, observed as follows:-
(6) 945.APL1731.24
"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."
10. On perusal of the entire investigation papers, in the
light of the above propositions laid down by the Hon'ble
Apex Court, admittedly, there is no specific allegations as far
as the ill-treatment at the hands of present applicants are
concerned. The observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
Dara Lakshmi Narayan and Others vs. State of Telangana
and Others, reported in MANU/SC/1309/2024, is relevant
wherein it is observed that the family members of the
husband ought not to be unnecessarily roped into criminal
proceeding arising out of matrimonial discord. The Court
observed that it has become recurring tendency to implicate
every member of the husband's family irrespective of their
(7) 945.APL1731.24
role or actual involvement, merely because a dispute has
arisen between these two spouses.
11. Here in the present case, it is apparent that the First
Information Report came to be lodged, and there is dispute
between the husband and wife, and the other family
members are also implicated. Considering the nature of
allegation, which is general and omnibus in nature, the
application deserves to be allowed partly. Accordingly, we
proceed to pass following order.
ORDER
(i) Application is allowed partlly.
(ii) The First Information Report in connection with Crime
No. 434/2024 registered under Section 498A, 323, 504, 506
read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and
Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and
consequent proceeding arising out of the same bearing
Charge Sheet No. 212/2024 is hereby quashed and set aside
to the extent of the present applicants i.e. applicant no. 1 -
Aniket s/o Anurath Surnar, applicant no. 2 - Sangubai d/o
Hanmantrao Dhulgunde, applicant no. 3 - Shriram s/o
Hanmantrao Dhulgunde, applicant no. 4 - Pranita w/o
Shriram Dhulgunde and applicant. no. 5 - Vanita d/o
Hanmantrao Dhulgune @ Vanita Santosh Markend.
(iii) The application for applicant no. 1 stands disposed of
with liberty to file an appropriate proceeding before the
appropriate Court.
(8) 945.APL1731.24
(iv) The application is disposed of in the above said terms.
(NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.) (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)
Shubham
