Bombay High Court
Pooja Chetan Bundele vs State Of Maharashtra Throuh Pso Ps ... on 24 September, 2025
(1) 12 apl 1515-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.1515 OF 2024
Pooja Chetan Bundele and another
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra through P.S.O., P.S. Rajapeth Amravati and another
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri S.B. Gandhe, Advocate for applicant
Ms H.N. Prabhu, APP for non-applicant/State
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE AND
NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATED : 24.09.2025
The present applicants who are the wife of brother in-
law of the informant and applicant No.2, who is the cousin sister
of the husband of the informant, approached to this Court for
quashing of the First Information Report in connection with
Crime No. 0413/2024, registered with Police Station Rajapeth,
Amravati, under Section 498-A, read with Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code, as also, consequent Charge-sheet No.
440/2024 and R.C.C. No. 1285/2024, pending on the file of
learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.7, Amravati.
2. The crime is registered against them on the basis of a
report lodged by Pratibha Yogesh Bundele, who is non-applicant
No.2, on an allegation that her marriage with Yogesh Bundele
was performed on 03.06.2021. After marriage, she was resumed
cohabitation, but she was not treated well and she was ill-treated
by demanding the amount from her parents. It is alleged that the
(2) 12 apl 1515-2024
present applicants assaulted her on 22.08.2023, with fists and
kicks blows. On the basis of the said report, the police have
registered the crime against the present applicants.
3. Heard learned Counsel for the applicants, who
submitted that the applicant No.2 is residing separately, and as
far as the allegations against the applicant No.1 are concerned,
which are general in nature. Only because she is a family
member, she is implicated. General and omnibus allegation is
levelled against her. In view of that no prima facie case is made
out.
4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor strongly
opposed the said application and invited our attention towards the
recitals of the First Information Report.
5. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the
recitals of the First Information Report, admittedly, the applicant
No.1 is the wife of the brother-in-law of the informant, and
applicant No.2 is the cousin sister of the husband of the
informant. As far as applicant No.2 is concerned, she is not
residing along with the informant and her husband. Merely
because she is a cousin sister, she is implicated in the alleged
offence. Considering the recitals of the First Information Report,
admittedly, general and omnibus allegations are levelled against
the present applicants, and therefore, no prima facie case is made
out.
6. 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 :
(3) 12 apl 1515-2024
"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."
7. In the case of Kahkashan Kausar Vs. State of
Birhar, (2022) 6 SCC 599, 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 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."
(4) 12 apl 1515-2024
8. In view of the observations of the Hon'ble Apex
Court, admittedly, no prima facie case is made out against the
present applicants, and therefore, the application deserves to be
allowed. Accordingly,we proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
i) Application is partly allowed.
ii) The First Information Report in connection with
Crime No. 0413/2024, registered with Police Station Rajapeth,
Amravati, under Section 498-A, read with Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code, as also, consequent Charge-sheet No.
440/2024 and R.C.C. No. 1285/2024, pending on the file of
learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.7, Amravati, is
hereby quashed and set aside to the extent of the applicant No.1
Pooja W/o Chetan Bundele and applicant No.2 - Pooja D/o
Gajanan Bundele.
The application is disposed of in the above said
terms.
(NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.) (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)
Jayashree..
