Bombay High Court
Bhagwan Mahadeororao Karade vs State Of Maha Thr Pso, Ps Warora on 18 September, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:9422-DB
J-APL 477-2025.odt 1/7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.477/2025
Bhagwan Mahadeorao Karade
Aged about : 63 years, Occ. : Advocate,
R/o Plot no. 56, Chatrapati Nagar,
Wardha road, Nagpur
... APPLICANT
...VERSUS...
1. State of Maharashtra
Through its Police Station Officer,
P.S. - Warora, Chandrapur
2. Vrushali Vinayak Karde,
Aged about 31 years, Occ: Nurse,
Dwarkanagri Anandvan, C/o
Suresh Dehakar,
P.S. Warora, Chandrapur
...NON-APPLICANTS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri. Apurva D. Kolhe, Advocate for applicant
Shri N.B. Jawade, APP for non-applicant/State
Ms P.D. Pisurde, Advocate for non-applicant No.2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE AND
NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATED : 18.09.2025
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)
Heard. Admit. Heard finally with the consent of learned
Counsel for the parties.
2. The present application is preferred by the applicants for
quashing of the First Information Report in connection with Crime
No. 0582/2022, registered with Warora Police Station, District
Chandrapur, for the offences punishable under Section 498-A read
with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, as also the consequent
charge-sheet bearing No.85/2023, registered as Regular Criminal
Case No.96/2023.
3. The present applicant is the cousin father-in-law of the
informant, who lodged the report on an allegation that her
marriage with one Vinayak Devidas Karade was performed on
22.09.2020. After marriage, she resumed the cohabitation at the
house of the co-accused, wherein, he was residing with other family
members. It is alleged that on the instigation of the present
applicant, her husband was ill treating her by demanding the
amount and also assaulting her. On the basis of the said report,
Police have registered the crime against the present applicant.
4. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant, who submitted that
as far as the present applicant is concerned who was not at all
residing along with the informant, and he was residing separately.
There is no occasion for the present applicant to ill treat the
informant. It is further submitted that now the decree of dissolution
of marriage is already passed between her and her husband. As far
as the present applicant is concerned, general allegations are
levelled against him, so no purpose will be served by forcing him to
face the trial. In view of that the First Information Report be
quashed along with the criminal proceeding arising out of the
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor strongly opposed for
the same on the ground that there is a specific allegation that on
the instigation of the present applicant the other family members
were ill treating, abusing and beating the informant, and therefore,
there is a prima facie material against the present applicant. In view
of that the application deserves to be rejected.
6. Learned Counsel for the informant has also relating the same
contentions and submitted that considering the prima facie material
the application deserves to be rejected.
7. On hearing both the sides and on perusal of the entire
investigation papers, as well as the First Information Report.
admittedly, the present applicant is residing separately and never
resided along with the informant and her husband. As far as the
allegations levelled against the present applicant is concerned,
which is general in nature. Now, the decree of dissolution of
marriage is already passed in favour of the informant and her
husband. Considering the nature of the allegations which are the
statements omnibus, stereotype and not stating any specific
instances, 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, (2010) 7 SCC 667, wherein, the Apex Court
observed in paragraph Nos. 30, 32, 34 as under :
"30. It is a matter of common knowledge that
unfortunately matrimonial litigation is repeatedly
increasing in our country. All the Courts in our country
including this Court are flooded with the matrimonial
cases. This really demonstrates discontent and unrest in
the family life of a large number of people in the society.
31............
32. It is the 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 came across a large number of
such complaints which are not even bona fide and as
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.
33...............
34. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of complaint the
implications and consequences are not properly
visualized by the complainant that such complaint can
lead to unsurmountable, harassment, agony and pain to
the complainant, accused and his close relations."
8. In another case of Kahkashan Kausar Vs. State of Birhar,
(2022) 6 SCC 599, wherein also the same subject matter was dealt
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and 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 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."
9. Now a days tendency to implicate all the family members of
the husband in the complaint like 498-A of the IPC which is also the
observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court
by referring the judgment of Dara Lakshmi Narayana Vs. State of
Telangane, MANU/SC/1309/2024, 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 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.
10. In view of the above observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court
with the facts and allegations against the present applicant are
concerned which are general and omnibus in nature, no specific
instances are narrated by the informant. Moreover, considering the
fact that now the matrimonial tie between the informant and her
husband is already dissolved by obtaining the decree of dissolution
of marriage, no purpose will be served by forcing the present
applicant to face the trial. In view of that application deserves to be
allowed. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following order :
ORDER
1) Criminal application is allowed.
2) The First Information Report in connection with Crime No.
0582/2022, registered with Warora Police Station, District
Chandrapur, for the offences punishable under Section 498-A read
with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, as also the consequent
charge-sheet bearing No.85/2023, registered as Regular Criminal
Case No.96/2023, are hereby quashed and set aside.
3) The fees of the appointed Counsel be quantified as per Rules.
11. The application stands disposed of in the above terms.
(NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.) (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)
Jayashree..
