Bombay High Court
Janardhan Pandurang Galkar And Others. vs State Of Mah. Thr. Pso, Ps, Jalgaon, ... on 22 September, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:9658-DB
J-apl119.23.odt 1/7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) No.119 OF 2023
1. Janardhan Pandurang Galkar,
Aged about 47 years,
Occupation : Agriculturist,
R/o. Warwat Khanderao ,
Tq. Sangrampur, Bhuldana,
Mah. 444 201.
2. Raghunath Pandurang Galkar,
Aged about 63 years,
Occupation : Agriculturist,
R/o. Warwat Khanderao,
Tq. Sangrampur, Jalgaon Jamod, Buldana,
Mh. 444 201.
3. Goverdhan Pandurang Galkar,
Aged about 58 years,
Occupation : Service,
R/o. 36-B, Rajeshwar Colony,
Near Purkar House, Shegaon,
Ta. Shegaon, Distt. Buldhana.
4. Hariram Pundlik Bade,
Aged about 57 years,
Occupation : Agriculturist,
R/o. Wadshingi Ta. Jalgaon Jamod,
Distt. Buldhana.
5. Satyabhama w/o.Hariram Badhe,
Aged about 56 years,
Occupation : Agriculturist,
R/o. Wadshingi Ta. Jalgaon Jamod,
Distt. Buldhana.
6. Gajanan Chandrabhan Chabre,
Aged about 57 years,
Occupation : Labour,
R/o. Ladnapur, Tq. Sangrampur,
J-apl119.23.odt 2/7
Distt. Buldhana, Maharashtra. : APPLICANTS
...VERSUS...
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through the Police Station Officer,
Police Station, Jalgaon,
District Buldana.
2. Ujjwala Janardhan Galkar,
Aged about 35 years,
Occupation : Housewife,
R/o. c/o. Anant P. Thakare,
Wadshingi Tal. Jalgaon Jamod,
Distt. Buldhana. : NON-APPLICANTS
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Mr. S.V. Sirpurkar, Advocate for Applicants.
Mr. M.J.Khan, Additional Public Prosecutor for Non-applicant No.1.
Mr. S.R. Deshpande, Advocate for Non-applicant No.2.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE AND
NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATE : 22nd SEPTEMBER, 2025.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : Urmila Joshi-Phalke)
1. Heard. Admit. Heard finally by consent of learned
counsel appearing for the parties.
2. The present application is preferred by the applicants for
quashing and setting aside the F.I.R. in connection with Crime
No.723/2022, registered with Police Station Jalgaon Jamod,
District Buldhana,for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A,
323, 504,, 506, 294 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The crime is registered on the basis of report lodged by
non-applicant No.2 Sau. Ujjwala Janardan Galkar on an allegation
that her marriage was performed with applicant No.1/Janardan
Pandurang Galkar on 12.2.2018 as per the Hindu rites and customs.
After marriage she resumed cohabitation at the house of present
applicants. The applicant No.1 is her husband and applicant Nos.2,
3 and 4 are brothers-in-law and applicant No.5 is sister-in-law and
applicant No.6 is again brother-in-law. As per her allegations after
the marriage for some days she was treated well but thereafter she
was subjected for ill-treatment on account of she is unable to
conceive the pregnancy and, therefore, she was constrained to leave
the matrimonial house. On the basis of said report Police have
registered the crime against the present applicants.
4. Heard Mr. S.V. Sirpurkar, learned counsel for the
applicants, who submitted that as far applicants i.e. applicant Nos.2
and 5 are concerned merely because they are relatives of the
applicant No.1 and they are implicated in the alleged offence. No
specific allegations or instances are narrated in a First Information
Report and, therefore, as far as the applicant Nos.2 and 6 are
concerned they have made out a case for quashing of F.I.R. by
exercising inherent powers. He further submitted that even
considering the allegations against her husband which is of a
general nature the matrimonial proceeding are already going on
and only to give the counter blast to the said proceeding the F.I.R.
was lodged against the husband. In view of that, he prayed for
quashing of the F.I.R.
5. Mr. M.J. Khan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
the non-applicant No.1 strongly opposed the said application and
taken us through the various statements recorded during the
investigation and submitted that against all the applicants there are
specific allegations levelled and the offence is made out prima facie,
therefore, the application deserves to be rejected.
6. Learned counsel for the complainant also reiterated the
said contentions and invited our attention towards the F.I.R. lodged
against the applicant No.2 and submitted that there are criminal
antecedents against the said applicant No.2 and, therefore, the
application deserves to be rejected.
7. On hearing both sides and on perusal of the entire
investigation papers learned counsel for the applicant submitted
that as far as the applicant No.1 is concerned he is not pressing the
application as the proceeding for declaring the non-applicant No.2
as a wife he has filed a suit which is pending before the trial Court.
8. As far as other applicants are concerned, on going
through the investigation papers and recitals of the F.I.R.
admittedly general allegation is levelled against them and no
specific instances are narrated by the informant as far as
ill-treatment or their visit to the matrimonial house of these
applicants are concerned. These aspects are considered by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of decisions. It is observed by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mangiram Vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh, reported in MANU/SC./1066/2025, while considering the
provisions under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code that 498-A
of I.P.C. 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 provide for fine. The explanation appended to the provision
defines 'cruelty' in two parts, clause (a) refers to, willful 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) refers to scope of the term
which include harassment with a view to coercing woman or her
relative to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable
security or on account of failure to meet such demand.
9. It is further observed by referring the earlier judgment
Dara Laxmi Narayana Vs. State of Telangana,
MANU/SC./1309/2024, that family members of the husband out
not to be unnecessarily roped into criminal proceeding arising out
of matrimonial dispute. 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 has further
held that where the allegation 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.
10. The Court noted the 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 the light of the above observations, the facts of the
present case are taken into consideration. The recitals of the F.I.R.
and the statements recorded during the investigation nowhere
states any specific instances as far as applicant Nos.2 to 6 are
concerned. As the general and omnibus allegations are levelled
against the applicant Nos.2 and 6, they have made out a case for
quashing. In view of that, we proceed to pass following order :
ORDER
(i) The application is allowed.
(ii) The F.I.R. in connection with Crime
No.723/2022, registered with Police Station Jalgaon Jamod,
District Buldhana for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A,
323, 504, 506, 294 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is
hereby quashed to the extent of applicant Nos.2 to 6 are concerned.
(iii) The application is disposed of in the
abovesaid terms.
(iv) The Investigating Officer is permitted to file
the charge-sheet against the applicant No.1.
(Nandesh S. Deshpande, J.) (Urmila Joshi-Phalke, J.)
wadode
Signed by: Mr. Devendra Wadode
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 24/09/2025 15:12:20
