Bombay High Court
Ashok Ramchandra Gujar (Father In Law) ... vs The State Of Mah. Thr. Pso, Ps Avdhut ... on 9 September, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:8864-DB
J-apl1176.23.odt 1/8
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) No.1176 OF 2023
1. Ashok Ramchandra Gujar,
Age @ 74 years,
Occupation : Agriculturist,
(father in law)
2. Sau. Aruna Ashok Gujar,
Age @ 60 years,
Occupation : Housewife,
(mother in law)
3. Dr. Kishor Ramchandra Gujar,
Age @ 63 years,
Occupation : Retired,
Applicant No.1 to 3 R/o. Shinde Nagar,
Near Dyaneshwar Temple,
Yavatmal, Distt.Yavatmal,
(cousin father in law)
4. Amit Ashok Gujar,
Age @ 38 years,
Occupation : Service,
R/o. Flat No.C1D - 1105,
Brooklyn Sector 4,
CL-1, Pride World Society, Charholi (Bk),
Pune, Tq. and Distt. Pune.
(Brother in law).
5. Sau. Sujata Amol Dagwade,
Age @ 44 years,
Occupation : Business,
R/o. Flat No.B4-303, Whisling Palms,
Near Yashoda Mangal Karyalaya Wakad,
Pune (Sister in law) : APPLICANTS
J-apl1176.23.odt 2/8
...VERSUS...
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
Police Station Avdhut Wadi,
Distt. Yavatmal.
2. Komal Ajinkya Gujar,
Age @ 28 years,
Occupation : Service,
R/o. Pushpakunj Society,
Avdhutwadi, Yavatmal,
Distt. Yavatmal. : RESPONDENTS
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Mr. S.M. Vaishnav, Advocate for Applicants.
Mr. N.B.Jawade, Adddl. Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1.
Mr. M.P.Kariya, Advocate for respondent No.2.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE AND
NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATE : 09th SEPTEMBER, 2025.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : Urmila Joshi-Phalke)
1. Admit. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel
appearing for the parties.
2. The applicants have approached this Court under
Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code with a prayer to quash
and set aside the F.I.R. bearing No.0976/2023, registered under
Section 498-A, 323, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. On 07.08.2023 the informant, Komal Ajinkya Gujar,
approached to the Avadhut Wadi Police Station, District Yavatmal
and lodged report on an allegations that her marriage was
performed with co-accused, Ajinkya Ashok Gujar on 15th July, 2021
as per the rites and rituals. After marriage she was treated well for
six months and thereafter she was ill-treated by the present
applicants. The applicant No.1 is her father-in-law, applicant No.2
is mother-in-law, applicant No.3 is cousin father-in-law, applicant
No.4 is brother-in-law and applicant No.5 is sister-in-law. She
alleged that applicant Nos.1 and 2 were instigating her husband
and, therefore, she was ill-treated her physically as well as
mentally. In the year November 2022 there was a quarrel between
her and her in-laws and she was driven out of the house, since then
she was residing along with her parents. She stayed at the parents
house for six months, neither her husband nor the applicant Nos.1
and 2 approached to her parents to fetch her back. In May 2023
she herself joined the company of her husband but she was ill-
treated on the instigation of the applicant Nos.1 and 2 and,
therefore, she constrained to live the matrimonial house and lodged
the First Information Report. On the basis of the First Information
Report the applicants are arraigned as an accused.
4. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, who submitted
that merely because the applicants are the nearest relatives of the
husband, they are implicated with the general allegations. The
omnibus allegations are levelled against the present applicants. No
specific instances are narrated by the informant in the First
Information Report. Therefore, no case is made out against the
present applicants, general allegations are not sufficient to say that
they have instigated her husband to cause ill-treatment to the
informant. Out of the discord between the matrimonial relationship
the F.I.R. came to be lodged and all the family members are
implicated. As no prima facie case is made out against the present
applicants and forcing them to face the trial would be the abuse of
the process of law. In view of that, the application deserves to be
allowed.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent
No.1 strongly opposed the application and invited our attention
towards recitals of the F.I.R. and submitted that at this stage
sufficient material is on record in the form of F.I.R. to show that the
applicants are involved in the said crime. In view of that, the
application deserves to be rejected.
6. Heard learned counsel for the informant also. He
reiterated the contentions and submitted that the recitals of the
F.I.R. itself sufficiently shows that present applicants are involved in
instigating the co-accused and due to which the co-accused husband
has subjected her for ill-treatment, therefore, considering
prima facie material, the application deserves to be rejected.
7. On hearing both sides and on perusal of the recitals of
the F.I.R. it reveals that no specific instances are narrated by the
informant as far as the instigation part at the hands of applicant
Nos.1 and 2 are concerned, as far as rest of the applicants are
concerned general statement is made that they were also instigating
her husband and, therefore, her husband was ill-treating her.
Considering the nature of the allegations at this stage reference can
be given to Section 498-A of I.P.C. which reads as under :
"Section 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."
8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of decisions has
considered the aspect that it now a days it became fashion to
implicate all family members in the crime when the F.I.R. is
registered under Section 498-A. In the case of Preeti Gupta and
another Vs. State of Jharkhand and another, reported in (2010) 7
SCC 667 wherein Hon'ble Apex Court observed as follows :
"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.
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 are also a matter of serious
concern.
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. In another case Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and others
Vs. State of Bihar and others, 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 para 17 as
under :
"17. 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. In recent judgment in the case of Mange Ram Vs. State
of Madhya Pradesh and another, MANU/SC/1066/2020 the Hon'ble
Apex Court while considering the tendency of roping the entire
family members by referring the judgment in Dara Laxmi Narayana
and others Vs. State of Telengana and another, reported in (2025) 3
SCC 735 has observed that, in this judgment it clear 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 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."
11. In view of the above observation of the Hon'ble Apex
Court, if the allegations levelled against the present applicants are
examined admittedly general and omnibus allegations levelled
against the present applicants. In view of that, the application
deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, we proceed to pass following
order :
ORDER
(i) The application is allowed.
(ii) The First Information Report bearing
No.0976/2023, registered against the present applicants under
Sections 498-A, 323, 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code is hereby quashed and set aside.
(iii) The application is disposed of.
(Nandesh S. Deshpande, J.) (Urmila Joshi-Phalke, J.)
wadode
Signed by: Mr. Devendra Wadode
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 09/09/2025 18:14:17
