Bombay High Court

Karishma W/O Kumar Chatap vs Kumar S/O Govind Chatap And 3 Others on 14 October, 2025

2025:BHC-NAG:10855

                                                                            apeal 641.24.odt
                                                  1


                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                                  NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
                                 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 641/2024


                     Karishma w/o Kumar Chatap
                     aged about 27 yrs., Occ. Nil,
                     R/o. Juni Wasti Zingabai Takli,
                     Tah. & Dist. Nagpur.

                                                             ...APPELLANT
                                                                 (Victim)
                                          VERSUS

                 1. Kumar S/o. Govindrao Chatap
                    (Husband), Aged about 39 yrs.,
                    Occ. Service,
                 2. Sau Indirabai w/o Govindrao Chatap,
                    (Mother in Law), aged about 65 years,
                    Occ: Housewife

                 3. Monali Wasudeorao Dodke,
                    (Sister in Law), Aged about 32 years,
                    Occ: Housewife,

                     All Resident of Dahegaon, Tah. Saoner
                     Distt. Nagpur.

                 4. State of Maharashtra Through Police
                    Station Officer, Police Station
                    Khaparkheda, Dist. Nagpur.
                    Tahsil -Saoner Dist- Nagpur.
                                                             ...RESPONDENTS
                                                                                  apeal 641.24.odt
                                           2


 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. D.A. Sonwane, Advocate (appointed) for petitioner.
P. S. Patil, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
Mr. Bhagwan M. Lonare, APP for respondent No.4.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                CORAM               : M. M. NERLIKAR, J.
                DATE               :   14.10.2025

ORAL JUDGMENT :

Heard.

2. By way of this appeal filed under Section 372 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure ("Code") and Section 413 of the

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ("BNSS"), the

appellant is seeking to quash the impugned judgment and order

dated 18.01.2024 passed by the learned 2 nd Jt. Civil Judge

Junior Division, Saoner in Regular Criminal Case No.218/2018,

whereby, the learned Trial Court acquitted the respondent Nos.

1 to 3.

3. Brief facts of the case appears to be that:-

The appellant-wife married the respondent No.1

(husband) on 19.4.2017, as per the customs and rites

prevailing in their religion and out of the said wedlock the apeal 641.24.odt

couple is blessed with one daughter. During cohabitation,

Respondent Nos.1 to 3 used to torture appellant - Karishma

Chatap compelling her to meet unlawful demand of money

from her parents, and on refusal by her, used to harass her

mentally and physically and also beat her. They also used to

harass her for not giving birth to a son and wanted her to leave

the matrimonial house.

4. It is alleged that on 20.9.2017, the mother-in-law

quarrelled with the appellant on a trivial matter and also

warned her not to stay in the matrimonial house. Even on

3.9.2017, after return from Adasa Temple, the mother in law

and respondent No.3 quarrelled with the appellant and abused

her in filthy language. Due to which the appellant got afraid

and thought it unsafe to continue living in the matrimonial

house.

5. Further, it is claimed that when on 18.9.2017, the

appellant-wife gave money to respondent No. 3 to bring a Cake

to Celebrate the birthday of her husband, she was accused by

the respondent No. 1- husband of theft alleging that she has apeal 641.24.odt

stolen the money from him. Even though at the time when the

accusation of theft was levied, the appellant was seven month

pregnant, then also she was beaten with fist blows and kicks

thereby stating that they do not want the child.

6. The respondent-husband took the appellant to her

parents' house for delivery of the child and on 21.2.2018 she

gave birth to a female child. After two months i.e. on

26.4.2018 of staying in her parents' house after delivery, when

the appellant along with her parents reached her matrimonial

house, she and her baby were immediately driven out by

Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on the count that they wanted a son,

and also threatened her not to stay in the house. Therefore, the

appellant lodged the complaint to Mahila cell at Nagpur.

7. Thereafter, the appellant on 1.6.2018 lodged the

report at Police Station Khaperkheda complaining ill-treatment

and unlawful demands made by Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

Hence, considering the nature of the complaint, the police

registered the first information report for an offence under apeal 641.24.odt

section 498-A of Indian Penal Code. After completion of

investigation, charge-sheet was filed. Charge was framed at

Exh.22. The same was read over and explained to accused

persons in vernacular language. However, they pleaded not

guilty and claimed to be tried.

8. During trial, the appellant and her parents were

examined. After completion of the evidence of both the parties,

the learned Trial court on account of hostile witness acquitted

the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 under section 498-A of the Indian

Penal Code. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant has

preferred this appeal.

9. In order to substantiate the case of the prosecution,

the prosecution has examined as many as seven witnesses,

these are PW-1 Karishma Chatpat who is the informant, PW-2

Balkrushnaji Aadmare, PW-3 Lobhaji Shirpurkar, PW-4 Sau.

Sharda Shirpurkar, PW-5 Balwant Gujarkar, PW-6 Suryabhan

Jalate and PW-7 Nilesh Bhijwad. In the deposition of the

informant, she has stated that on 19.04.2017, the marriage

between her and respondent No.1 was solemnized and after apeal 641.24.odt

marriage she was harassed and ill-treated on account of coat

and articles not being given in the marriage as per the wish of

the respondents. The accused No.1 declined to cohabit with her

and abused her of belonging to beggar family. It is stated in the

evidence that during pregnancy, proper treatment was not

provided to her and when she gave birth to a female child, she

was harassed on that count also and thrown out of the house

Therefore, she has lodged the First Information Report at

Exh.34. In her cross-examination, it was brought on record

that the petitioner was not paying attention to the chores of

matrimonial house and was instead busy using social media

sites like facebook and instagram. It was also tried to bring on

record that the informant was insisting to reside separately

along with accused No.1.

10. PW2 is spot panch who did not support the case of the

prosecution and was declared hostile. So far as other witnesses

are concerned, PW-3 father of the PW-1 has deposed the same

version as PW-1. PW-4 mother of the PW1 has only deposed apeal 641.24.odt

about the accused ill treating PW-1. PW-5 is uncle of PW-1

whose evidence is hearsay.

11. Therefore, only the evidence of PW-1, PW-3 and PW-4

are relevant to decide the present case. After perusal of the

evidence of all these witnesses, the ingredients of Section 498-A

of the Indian Penal Code are not satisfied. Section 498-A of the

Indian Penal Code reads as under:-

"498A. 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.]"