Bombay High Court
Navalchand Bhavsingh Rathod And Others vs State Of Maharashtra Thr Pso. Ps. ... on 8 September, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:8898-DB
31 apl 306.25.odt..odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 306 OF 2025
1. Mr. Navalchand s/o Bhavsingh
Rathod
Aged about 61 years,
Occupation : job
2. Mrs. Shobha w/o Navalchand
Rathod
Aged about 53 years,
occupation : homemaker
3. Mr. Akash s/o Navalchand Rathod
Aged : 30 years, occupation: job
4. Ms. Apeksha D/o Navalchand
Rathod
Aged about 27 years,
Occupation : Job
All 1 to 4 R/o Basera Colony,
Malkapur, Gawandaon Tal. Patur,
District Akola
5. Randhir Janakiram Chavhan,
Aged about 39 years, Occ: Job
6. Panchibai @ Panchafula Janakiram
Chavhan,
Aged about 61 years, Occ: Job
7. Sanjay Janakiram Chavhan,
Aged about 46 years, Occ: Job
All 5 to 7 R/o Gavadgaon, Taluka
Patur, District Akola
8. Sadhana Gajanan Rathod,
Aged about 48 years, Occ.: Job,
R/o Belgav, Taluka Mehkar,
District Buldhana
9. Ranjita Anil Rathod, ...APPLICANTS
Aged about 38 years, Occ.: Job
R/o Mandwa Forest, Taluka Mehkar,
31 apl 306.25.odt..odt
2
Dist. Buldhana
// V E R S U S //
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
Police Station Dongaon, District
Buldhana
2. Sau. Pratiksha w/o Vishalkumar
Rathod
Aged about 25 years,
Occ.: Housewife,
R/o Gawandaon, Taluka Patur,
Besara Colony, Malkapur,
District Akola
3. Vishalkumar s/o Navalchand
Rathod
Aged about 32 years,
Occupation : Job NON-APPLICANTS
R/o. Gawandagon Taluka Patur,
Basera Colony, Malkapur Dist.Akola
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr P. J. Mehta, Advocate for the applicants.
Mr N.B. Jawade, APP for non-applicant No.1/State.
Mr A.M. Kukday, Advocate for non-applicant Nos.2 and 3.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
31 apl 306.25.odt..odt
3
2. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for
final disposal with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.
3. The applicants being applicant No.1 is father-in-law,
applicant No.2 is mother-in-law, applicant No.3 is brother-in-law,
applicant No.4 sister-in-law, applicant No.5 brother of the
applicant No.2 (maternal uncle), applicant No.6 is mother-in-law,
applicant No.7 maternal uncle and applicant Nos. 8 and 9 are
maternal aunts approached to this Court under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash and set aside
the First Information Report bearing No.276/2023 and charge
sheet RCC No.57/2024 pending before learned Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Mehkar District Buldhana registered for the offences
punishable under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 and 34 of the
Indian Penal Code (for short, 'I.P.C.').
4. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of
the application are as under:-
The First Information Report is lodged by non-
applicant No.2/informant Sau. Pratiksha w/o Vishalkumar Rathod
on an allegation that her marriage was performed with co-accused
31 apl 306.25.odt..odt
4
Vishalkumar Rathod on 28.05.2021. After marriage, she resumed
the cohabitation but she was treated well for six months by all the
applicants and since August, 2021 she was ill-treated by all the
applicants demanding amount of Rs.10 Lakhs and thereby
subjected to physical and mental ill-treatment due to which she
constrained to leave matrimonial house. She was also assaulted by
suspecting her character. Therefore, she approached to Woman
Bharosa Cell at Mehkar and thereafter the report is to be lodged.
On the basis of the said report, police have registered the crime.
During investigation, the investigating officer has recorded the
various statements and after completion of the investigation
charge-sheet is filed.
5. Heard learned counsel for the applicants who
submitted that applicant Nos.1 and 2 are parents of the husband
of the informant and others are the relatives of the husband of the
informant. They never stayed along with informant or husband or
applicant Nos.1 and 2. Therefore, question of ill-treatment at their
hands does not arise. He further invites our attention towards the
recitals of the FIR and submitted that omnibus allegations are
31 apl 306.25.odt..odt
5
levelled against all the applicants. No specific instances are
narrated by the informant. Now the informant and her husband
are residing separately and only these applicants are facing
charges under Sections 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. He
submitted that these omnibus allegations would not be sufficient
to prove the charges against the present applicants and no purpose
would be served by sending them to face the trial. He further
submitted that in view of the catena of the decisions of Hon'ble
Apex Court merely because the applicants are close relatives of the
husband of the informant those were implicated and therefore,
application deserves to be allowed.
6. Per contra, learned APP strongly opposed for the same
and submitted that whether the applicants have subjected her ill-
treatment or harassment is a matter of trial. At this stage, the
allegations levelled against them are sufficient to frame the charge
and therefore, application deserves to be rejected.
7. Learned counsel for the informant reiterated the
same contentions and submitted that the allegations formed the
charge and whether she was subjected to ill-treatment or not at
31 apl 306.25.odt..odt
6
the hands of the present applicants is a matter of evidence. In view
of that, the application deserves to be rejected.
8. The careful scrutiny of the First Information Report
and various statements of the witnesses depict that vague and
general omnibus allegations are made against the present
applicants regarding ill-treatment for trivial reasons. As far as the
ill-treatment by demanding amount of Rs.10 Lakh is concerned,
which is a general allegation. No specific instances are narrated by
the informant in the First Information Report. No particulars of
such demand have been given. It is not clarified as to when such
demand was raised. It is not the case that demand was in the
form of dowry. Thus, the omnibus statement is made that all in-
laws were ill-treating non-applicant No.2 in perusals of demand of
Rs.10 Lakh and fraudulently such allegations which are in the
nature of general allegations. As already observed that no specific
instances are given by the informant in the First Information
Report or her subsequent statement. The statement of only
relatives are recorded by the investigating officer.
31 apl 306.25.odt..odt
7
9. 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
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."
10. 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 is
concerned.
31 apl 306.25.odt..odt
8
11. 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
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.
12. 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
31 apl 306.25.odt..odt
9
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."
13. In recent judgment Mangeram Vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh reported in Manu/SC/1066/2025 observed
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
31 apl 306.25.odt..odt
10
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
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.
14. Thus, the object of the provision is prevention of
the dowry meance. But as has been rightly contended by the
petitioner 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.
31 apl 306.25.odt..odt
11
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.
15. 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
allegations are levelled against all the applicants and
therefore the application deserves to be allowed.
16. In view of that we proceed to pass following the
order:-
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Application is allowed.
(ii) First Information Report bearing No.276/2023
and charge sheet RCC No.57/2024 pending before learned
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mehkar District Buldhana
registered for the offences punishable under Section 498(A),
31 apl 306.25.odt..odt
323, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code is hereby
quashed and set aside against the applicants.
17. The criminal application stands disposed of.
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 17:20:07
