Bombay High Court
Baba S/O Hanif Sheikh And Others vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 8 September, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:8899-DB
30 apl 167.25.odt.jud..odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 167 OF 2025
1. Baba s/o Hanif Sheikh (Husband)
Aged about 41 years,
Occupation : Police Service
2. Tahera Begum w/o Hanif Sheikh
(Mother-in-law)
Aged about 64 years,
occupation : Nil
3. Sheikh Salman s/o Hanif Sheikh
(Brother-in-law)
Aged : 37 years, occupation: Service
All of the above applicants are R/o.
Near CID office, 2/5-1, PCMT
Quarter, Police Line Takli, Katol
Road, Nagpur.
4. Nurani Begaum w/o Javed Khan
(Sister-in-law) Aged about 38 years,
occupation : Housewife,
R/o. Plot No.22, Flat No.201,
Amrut Nagar Society, Shri Nath
Apartment, Surat City, District -
Surat
(GUJRAT)
5. Kiran Chaandkha Pathan
(Police Constable) Aged 41 years,
Occupation : Police Service,
Behind Police Quarters, Plot No.
256, Raghuji Nagar, Hanuman
Nagar, Nagpur ...APPLICANTS
// V E R S U S //
1. The State of Maharashtra,
30 apl 167.25.odt.jud..odt
2
Through its PSO of Police Station
Barshi Takli, Akola
District - Akola
2. Sadaf Ali w/o Baba Hanif Sheikh
Aged about 33 years,
Occupation : Housewife,
R/o. C/o. Jahangir Khan Munaf
Khan, Barshi Takli, Akola,
District - Akola NON-APPLICANTS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr Y. J. Sheikh Advocate for the applicants.
Mr Nikhil Joshi, APP for non-applicant No. 1/State.
Mr M.R. Deshpande, Advocate for non-applicant No.2.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J. AND
NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATED : 08.09.2025
O R A L J U D G M E N T : (PER : URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.)
1. Heard.
2. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for
final disposal with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.
3. The applicants who are husband, mother-in-law,
brother-in-law, sister-in-law have approached to this Court under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code and Section
528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, with a
30 apl 167.25.odt.jud..odt
3
prayer to quash and set aside the First Information Report bearing
No.588/2024 dated registered with Police Station Barshi Takli,
District Akola for the offences punishable under Sections 85,
115(2), 352, 351(2) read with Section 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023.
4. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of
the application as under:-
The First Information Report is lodged by non-
applicant No.2/informant, who is wife of the applicant No.1 on an
allegation that her marriage was performed with applicant No.1
on 26.05.2011 and other applicants are nearest relatives of her
husband. Applicant No.5 is second wife of applicant No.1. It was
alleged that during the said marriage non-applicant No.2 had
incurred a lot of expenses in the marriage. After marriage she
resumed the cohabitation but she was constantly ill-treated
physically as well as mentally by the applicant No.1. It is further
alleged that applicant No.1 informed her that he had married her
only because of his relatives had asked to do so otherwise he
could have married with better girl than the present non-applicant
30 apl 167.25.odt.jud..odt
4
No.2. It is further stated that in the report which indicates that
whenever the informant got pregnant applicant No.1 used to give
her some medicines due to which there was miscarriage. She was
abused in an abusive manner by the present applicants. There was
demand of money for purchasing a car and towards the said
demand her father had already paid Rs.1 lakh to the applicants.
However, there was further demand of Rs.5 lakh for repaying the
loan as well as for purchasing the car and therefore, she
constrained to leave the matrimonial house and approached to the
police station. On the basis of the said report police have
registered the crime.
5. After registration of crime the applicants approached
to this Court for quashing of the FIR on the ground that the
marriage was performed in the year 2011 i.e. on 26.05.2011 and
thereafter she resumed cohabitation and she stayed along with
applicant No.1 till lodging of the report i.e. till 21.12.2024. There
was no previous complaint as far as the ill-treatment is concerned.
Only with the false and frivolous allegations this report is lodged
by implicating all the family members. No specific instances are
30 apl 167.25.odt.jud..odt
5
narrated in the said FIR and only on omnibus allegations the
applicants are implicated in the alleged offenced.
6. Heard learned counsel for the applicants who
reiterated the said contentions and submitted that considering the
nature of the allegations even prima-facie case is not made out.
Therefore, the application deserves to be allowed. He also
submitted that it was applicant No.1 who has issued the notice to
the informant to resume the cohabitation but she has not resumed
the cohabitation and this false report is lodged. He submitted that
subsequent to the FIR another crime No.115/2025 under Section 3
and 4 of the Muslim Women Protection of Marriage Act, 2019 was
registered. He submitted that even considering the allegations
there is improvement as far the allegations regarding the demand
of money for purchasing the plot is concerned and the rest of the
allegations are also in general in nature. Applicant No.3 brother in
law is residing separately at Nagpur. Applicant No.4 (sister in law)
is residing at Surat and applicant No.5 is also residing separately.
There is no reason for them to stay together with applicant No.1
and ill-treated the informant. Thus, with the omnibus statement all
30 apl 167.25.odt.jud..odt
6
applicants are implicated in the alleged offence. In view of that
also the application deserves to be allowed.
7. Per contra learned APP strongly opposed for the same
and submitted that as far as the applicant No.1 is concerned there
is specific allegations to the ill-treatment for demanding the
demand of Rs.5 lakh for purchasing the car and the plot. There
was harassment at the hands of the present applicants. Whether it
is sufficient to result into conviction or not is a matter of evidence.
At this stage, prima facie there is sufficient material to implicate
the present applicants and therefore, application deserves to be
rejected.
8. Learned counsel for the informant reiterated the said
contentions and submitted that considering the involvement of the
applicant No.1-husband who is police constable due to his pressure
the complaint was not properly investigated by the investigating
agency. He submitted that he has misused his position and ill-
treated the informant for illegal demands. The subsequent
complaint lodged by the informant also shows there is specific
30 apl 167.25.odt.jud..odt
7
allegation levelled against the present applicants and therefore,
application deserves to be rejected.
9. On hearing both the sides and on perusal of the
application the entire allegation was around the fact that
informant who is legally wedded wife of applicant No.1, who was
subjected to ill-treatment at the hands of present applicants who
are the husband and nearest relatives and thereby committed an
offence.
10. At this stage reference can be made to Section 498-A
of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'I.P.C.') which read 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
30 apl 167.25.odt.jud..odt
8
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."
11. A careful scrutiny of both the FIRs show that the
allegation is that the applicants have abused and ill-treated
the informant by making unlawful demands. The recitals of
the FIR are taken into considerations. In both the FIRs the
omnibus allegations are levelled as far as the ill-treatment
and demand of Rs.5 Lakh is concerned.
12. At this stage reference can be given to
observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Preeti Gupta & Another vs State Of Jharkhand & Another
reported in (2010) 7 SCC 667 wherein Apex Court observed
in paragraph 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 moment over trivial issues
without proper deliberations. We came across a large
30 apl 167.25.odt.jud..odt
9
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 relatives.
13. In another case of Kahkashan Kausar @
Sonamand ors. vs The State Of Bihar and ors. reported in
2022 (6) SCC 599 the Supreme Court after taking stock of
various decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in the
subject matter observed in paragraph No.17 as under:-
"The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate
that this court has at numerous instances expressed
concern over the misuse of Section 498-A of the 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."
14. In recent judgment Mangeram Vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh reported in Manu/SC/1066/2025 observed
30 apl 167.25.odt.jud..odt
10
that Section 498-A of the 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 provides 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 her life, limb or
health, whether mental or physical. Clause (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. It is further held by referring
the judgment in case of Dara Laxmi Narayana Vs. State of
Telangana reported in Manu/SC/1309/2024 that family
members of the husband ought not to be unnecessarily roped
into criminal proceeding arising out of matrimonial discard.
The Court observed that it has become a recurring tendency
to 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. The
30 apl 167.25.odt.jud..odt
11
Court noted that criminal law is not to be deployed as an
instrument of harassment, and that judicial scrutiny must be
exercised to guard against such misuse.
15. Thus, the object of the provision is prevention of
the dowry meance. But as has been rightly contended by the
applicants many instances have come to light where the
complaints are not bonafide and have filed with obligue
motive. In such cases acquittal of the accused does not in all
cases wipe out the ignominy suffered during and prior to
trial. Sometimes adverse media coverage adds to the misery.
The question, therefore, is what remedial measures can be
taken to prevent abuse of the well-intentioned provision.
Merely because the provision is constitutional and intra vires,
does not give a licence to unscrupulous persons to wreck
personal vendetta or unleash harassment observed by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sushilkumar Sharma Vs.
Union of India and others, reported in (2005) 6 SCC 281.
16. Keeping in mind the aforesaid observations we
find that this is a fit case to exercise our jurisdiction under
Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1923 and
Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
and quash and set aside the proceedings against all the
applicants since the contents of the FIR shows that omnibus
30 apl 167.25.odt.jud..odt
12
allegations are levelled against all the applicants and
therefore the application deserves to be allowed.
17. In view of that we proceed to pass following the
order:-
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Application is allowed.
(ii) The FIR No.588/2024 registered with Police
Station Barshi Takli, District Akola for the offences punishable
under Sections 85, 115(2), 352, 351(2) read with Section
3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is hereby quashed and
set aside against the applicants.
18. The criminal application stands disposed.
Rule accordingly.
Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
[NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J] [ URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.)
manisha
Signed by: Mrs. Manisha Shewale
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 10/09/2025 17:20:53
