Bombay High Court
Sumit Ratnakar Bute And 5 Others vs State Of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Rajapeth ... on 15 October, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:10946-DB
apl.1021.2021.Judgment.odt
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.1021 OF 2021
1. Sumit Ratnakar Bute,
Aged 35 Years,
Occupation : Private Service,
R/o 806, 2 E Palash,
Green Dr. Road,
Shankar Kalat Nagar, Wakad,
Pimpari-Chinchwad,
Taluka and District Pune- 411057
(P.S.O. Wakad, Pune)
c/o Credence Resource Management : Office Address
st nd
MIDC 1 and 2 Floor,
"Zensar Building 3-1 E Park South Tower,
Kharadi, Pune,
Talkuka and District Pune - 411014.
2. Ratnakar Bhaurao Bute,
Aged 60 Years,
Occupation : Business and Agri.,
3. Lilabai Ratnakar Bute,
Aged : 55 Years,
Occupation : Household,
4. Navneet Ratnakar Bute,
Aged 30 Years,
Occupation : Business and Agri.
Applicant No.2 to 4 are
R/o Elkapar,
Tahsil Sausar,
District Chhindwara, M.P.,
(PSO Yelkapur, Sasur, District Chhindwara)
5. Kavya Kapil Kheta,
Aged 37 Years,
Occupation : Household,
R/o Prabhat Talkies,
Laxmibai Ward, Gondia,
Taluka and District Gondia,
(PSO Gondia)
apl.1021.2021.Judgment.odt
(2)
6. Aparna Vaibhav Bhute,
Aged 33 Years,
Occupation : Household,
R/o. Plot No.13, Block Sector,
Santaji Colony, Deo Nagar Road,
Khamla Road, Nagpur.
Tahsil and District Nagpur. .... APPLICANTS
// VERSUS //
1. State of Maharashtra, Through its
Police Station Officer,
Police Station, Rajapeth,
District Amravati,
Tahsil and District Amravati.
2. Rashmi Sumit Bute,
Aged 29 Years,
Occupation : Household,
R/o C/o Arunrao T. Tijare,
"Maharudra" Dande Plot,
Rajapeth, Amravati,
Tahsil and District Amravati. .... NON-APPLICANTS
-------------------------------------------
Mr. Anil Dhawas, Counsel for the applicants.
Ms. Shamsi Haider, APP for non-applicant No.1/State.
-------------------------------------------
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE AND
NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 30.09.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 15.10.2025
JUDGMENT :
(PER : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)
1. Admit.
2. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel
of the parties.
3. The applicants have approached this Court under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to
apl.1021.2021.Judgment.odt
quash and set aside the First Information Report (hereinafter
referred as "FIR") in connection with Crime No.676/2019
registered under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code and consequent proceeding arising out of same RCC
No.146/2020 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Amravati, District Amravati.
4. The applicant No.1 is the husband and applicant Nos.2
to 6 are the in-laws of the informant. The informant has lodged a
report against the present applicants alleging that her marriage
was performed with the applicant No.1 on 02.01.2019. After
marriage, she resumed the cohabitation with the applicant No.1.
Initially, she resided with all the applicants and subsequently,
she went along with her husband at Pune and was staying there.
As per the allegations, after marriage applicant No.1 ill-treated
her by demanding the unlawful demand to pay Rs.10,00,000/-
for purchasing the flat and on that count, she was physically as
well as mentally ill-treated. It is alleged that her mother-in-law
and sister-in-law have also harassed her by assaulting her. On
the basis of the said report, police have registered the crime
against the present applicants. During the investigation, the
Investigating Officer has recorded various statements of the
witnesses including the statement of friends of the informant to
whom she has disclosed the said incident.
apl.1021.2021.Judgment.odt
5. Heard learned Counsel for the applicants, who
submitted that on the basis of general and omnibus allegations,
the applicants are implicated in the alleged offence. He invited
our attention towards the investigation papers and submitted
that no particulars as to the allegations are narrated by the
informant while giving statement to the police. He submitted
that the marriage took place on 02.01.2019, whereas the FIR
was lodged in the year 2019. There was no previous complaint
as to the ill-treatment at the hands of the present applicants. He
submitted that she has lodged a false FIR implicating all the
family members of the applicant No.1.
6. Per contra, learned APP appearing for the State
submitted that there is a specific allegation as to the unlawful
demand as well as physical and mental cruelty at the hands of
the present applicants. Thus, considering the prima facie case,
sufficient material is on record to face the trial and therefore, the
application deserves to be rejected.
7. We have considered the submissions advanced by the
learned Counsel for the applicants and learned APP for the State.
Despite the notice served, none appears for the non-applicant
No.2. We have gone through the contents of the FIR and the
statements of the witnesses in the charge sheet. We have also
considered the allegations levelled against the applicants. Thus,
apl.1021.2021.Judgment.odt
careful scrutiny of the FIR depicts that vague, general and
omnibus allegations are made against applicant Nos. 2 to 6. The
facts and circumstances of the allegations also shows that after
marriage for a very short span of time, she stayed at her
matrimonial house and thereafter, she started residing along
with her husband at Pune. Her marriage was performed on
02.01.2019 and immediately in March 2019, she started residing
at Pune along with her husband. Thus, the recitals of the FIR
itself shows that for a very short span of time, she resided along
with her in-laws i.e. applicant Nos.2 and 3. The other applicants
are already residing separately. The applicant Nos. 5 and 6, who
are the sisters of the husband, are already married and staying
at their matrimonial house. It is not clarified as to when such a
demand was raised by the applicant Nos.2 to 6. It is not the
case that the demand was in the form of dowry. Considering the
allegations, at this stage, reference can be given to Section 498-
A 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-
apl.1021.2021.Judgment.odt
(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 meet
such demand."
8. The careful scrutiny of the charge sheet shows that
statements of parents and the friends are omnibus stereotype
as far as the applicant Nos.2 to 6 are concerned. 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 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
apl.1021.2021.Judgment.odt
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 visualized by the
complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable
harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his
close relations."
9. Section 498A of IPC prescribes punishment where a
woman is subjected to cruelty by her husband or his relatives. The
offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may
extend to three years and also provide for fine. The explanation
appended to the provision defines "cruelty" in two parts. Clause (a)
refers to 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. Clause (b) expands
the scope of term to include harassment with a view to coercing the
woman or her relative to meet any unlawful demand for property or
valuable security or on account of failure to meet such demand."
10. A bare perusal of the FIR and the materials placed on
record reveals that the specific allegation is levelled as far as the
apl.1021.2021.Judgment.odt
applicant No.1 is concerned. As far as the allegations against the
applicant Nos.2 to 6 are concerned, the recitals of the FIR itself
shows that after one month of marriage, she started residing
separately along with the husband.
11. A mere reference to the names of family members in a
criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific
allegations indicating their active involvement should be nipped in
the bud. It is a well-recognised fact, borne out from the
experience, that there is often a tendency to implicate all the
members of the husband's family when domestic disputes arise out
of a matrimonial discord.
12. The inclusion of Section 498A of the IPC by way of an
amendment was intended to curb cruelty inflicted on a woman by
her husband and his family, ensuring swift intervention by the
State. However, now a days there has been a notable rise in
matrimonial disputes and the tendency of roping all the family
members is also at rise. This facts is also considered by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others
vs. State of Telangana and another reported in
MANU/SC/1309/2024 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court observed
that "family members of the husband ought not to be unnecessarily
roped into criminal proceedings arising out of matrimonial discord.
The Court observed that it has become a recurring tendency to
apl.1021.2021.Judgment.odt
implicate every member of the husband's family, irrespective of
their role or actual involvement, merely because a dispute has
arisen between the spouses. It was further held that where the
allegations are bereft of specific particulars, and particularly where
the relatives sought to be prosecuted are residing separately or
have had no connection with the matrimonial home, allowing the
prosecution to proceed would amount to an abuse of the process of
law."
13. Coming to the facts of the present case, upon perusal of
the contents of the FIR and the entire charge sheet, the statements
of the witnesses it is revealed that general allegations are levelled
against applicant Nos.2 to 6 that they have harassed her by
demanding money and she was subjected to cruelty physically as
well as mentally. None of the applicants i.e. the applicant Nos.2 to
6 have been attributed in a specific role in furtherance of the
general allegations made against the them. This simply shows that
the allegations are general and omnibus.
14. The scope and ambit of courts' powers under Section 482
Cr.P.C are inherent power to do real and substantial justice, and to
prevent the abuse of the process of the law. It is also time and
again held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that inherent powers under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. though wide have to be exercised sparingly,
carefully and with great caution and only when such exercise is
apl.1021.2021.Judgment.odt
justified by the tests specifically laid down in the provision itself.
Authority of the court exists for the advancement of justice. If any
abuse of the process leading to injustice is brought to the notice of
the Court, then the Court would be justified in preventing injustice
by invoking inherent powers in absence of specific provisions in the
Statute.
15. Admittedly, present applicant Nos.2 to 6 are the in-laws
and the distinct relatives and no specific role is assigned to them,
compelling them to face further prosecution would definitely an
abuse of the process of law. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of
the considered opinion that FIR in connection with Crime
No.676/2019 registered under Section 498A read with Section 34 of
the Indian Penal Code and consequent proceeding RCC
No.146/2020 deserves to be quashed to the extent of applicant
Nos.2 to 6. Hence, we proceed to pass following order:
ORDER
(i) The application is partly allowed.
(ii) The First Information Report in connection with
Crime No.676/2019 registered with Police Station
Rajapeth, Amravati City, District Amravati under Section
498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and
consequent proceeding arising out of same RCC
No.146/2020 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Amravati, District Amravati, are hereby
apl.1021.2021.Judgment.odt
quashed and set aside to the extent of applicant Nos.2 to
(iii) The trial will continue as far as the applicant
No.1 is concerned.
(iv) Parties to bear their own costs.
The application is disposed of in the above said terms.
(NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J) (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J)
Sarkate.
Signed by: Mr. A.R. Sarkate
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 15/10/2025 17:18:29
