Bombay High Court
Anurag Vilasrao Akolkar And Anr. vs State Of Maharashtra Thr Police Station ... on 22 September, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:9638-DB
61 apl 935.25.odt..odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 935 OF 2025
1. Anurag Vilasrao Akolkar
Aged about 34 years,
Occ. Service
2. Sau. Seema Vilas Akolkar
Aged about: 55 years,
Occ. Housewife
Both R/o. New Vaishali Colony,
New Ganesh Vihar, Amravati,
Tq. & District Amravati
// V E R S U S //
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Police Station Officer,
Police Station Morshi
Amravati (Rural)Tq. Morshi,
District Amravati
2. Sau. Pranita Anurag Akolkar,
Aged about 30 years,
Occupation :Housewife
R/o Lakhanwadi Tq. Chandur
Bazar, Dist. Amravati, NON-APPLICANTS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr S.M. Vaishnav Advocate for the applicants.
Ms Shamsi Haider, APP for non-applicant No. 1/State.
Mr. P.A. Gode, Advocate for non-applicant No.2.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J. AND
NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATED : 22.09.2025
61 apl 935.25.odt..odt
2
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 present application is preferred by the applicants
for quashing of the First Information Report in connection with
Crime No.28/2024 dated 16.01.2025 registered under Sections
498-A, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code and consequent proceeding bearing RCC No.62/2025.
4. The crime is registered on the basis of the report
lodged by on an allegation that the marriage of the informant was
performed with applicant No.1 in the year 2021 and after
marriage she resumed the cohabitation at the house of the present
applicants. But she was not treated well. It is alleged that applicant
No.1 used to beat her, abused her on the instigation of applicant
No.2. On the basis of the said report police have registered the
crime against the present applicant.
61 apl 935.25.odt..odt
3
5. Heard learned counsel for the applicants. Learned
counsel for the applicants not presses application for applicant
No.1. Therefore, only the prayer for applicant No.2 requires to be
considered. He submitted that general and omnibus allegations is
levelled against applicant No.2. No prima-facie case is made out
against her. Merely because she is mother of applicant No.1 she is
implicated in the alleged offence and no purpose would be served
by forcing her to face the trial. Therefore, the application
deserves to be allowed.
6. Learned APP for the State strongly opposed for the
same and invited our attention towards the various statements of
the witnesses and submitted that the statements of the witnesses
sufficiently shows the involvement of the present applicant No.2 in
the alleged offence and therefore, application deserves to be
rejected.
7. Learned counsel for non-applicant No.2 endorsed the
same contentions and invited our attention towards statements of
the witnesses namely Jyotsana Raju Tayade and Raju Panjabrao
Tayade who are relatives of applicant No.2 and submitted that
61 apl 935.25.odt..odt
4
from their statements also the specific allegation are leveled
against applicant No.2 and therefore, prima-facie case is made out
against present applicant No.2. In view of that application
deserves to be hereby rejected.
8. On hearing both sides and perusal of the recitals of
the First Information Report and the other investigation papers, as
well as statements of the various witnesses it is revealed that
against husband there is the specific allegation that he has ill-
treated, assaulted and abused the informant. General and
omnibus allegations is levelled against the applicant No.2 that on
her instigation he was humiliating, abusing and insulting the
informant.
9. Thus, the statement which are recorded during
investigations are omnibus and stereotyped nature about ill-
treatment at the hands of the applicant No.2 is concerned. At this
stage reference can be given to the decision of 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:-
61 apl 935.25.odt..odt
5
"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.
10. In another case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam
and ors. vs The State Of Bihar and ors. reported in 2022 (6)
SCC 599 wherein also 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
61 apl 935.25.odt..odt
6
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."
11. Recently the Hon'ble Apex Court has considered
this aspect in the case of Mangeram Vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh reported in Manu/SC/1066/2025. 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
61 apl 935.25.odt..odt
7
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. also observed that Family members of the husband
ought not to be unnecessarily roped into criminal
proceeding 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."
12. In the light of the principles laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court and the facts of the present case are also
shows that omnibus and general allegations are levelled
against present applicant No.2. In view of that the applicant
61 apl 935.25.odt..odt
8
No.2 is made out a case for quashing of the FIR as well as
charge-sheet.
13. In view of that we proceed to pass following the
order:-
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Application is partly allowed.
(ii) The FIR in connection with Crime No.028/2025
and consequent proceeding bearing RCC No.62/2025
registered with Police Station Morshi District Amravati for the
offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506
read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code is hereby quashed and
set aside against present applicant No.2 Sau. Seema Vilas
Akolkar.
(iii) The application in respect of applicant
No.1-Anurag Vilasrao Akolkar is disposed of as not pressed.
14. The criminal application stands disposed of in
the above said terms.
Rule accordingly.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
[NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J] [ URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.)
manisha
Signed by: Mrs. Manisha Shewale
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 24/09/2025 10:50:22
