[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Pravin Chintaman Hiwale And 9 Others vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso Ps ... on 14 January, 2026
2026:BHC-NAG:601-DB
1/6 916.Judg.APL.853.2020.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 853 OF 2020
1. Pravin Chintaman Hiwale
Aged : 36 Years, Occu : Labour;
2. Suman Chintaman Hiwale
Aged : 56 Years, Occu : Service;
Nos.1 and 2 are R/o 3-F-33, Vikas Nagar,
Bundi, Tahsil and District Bundi,
Rajasthan-323001.
3. Madhukar Bansiram Misal
Aged : 57 Years; Occu : Labour;
4. Shashikala Madhukar Misal
Aged : 44 Years; Occu : Household;
5. Sanjay Bansiram Misal
Aged : 49 Years, Occu : Labour;
6. Vijay Bansiram Misal
Aged : 47 Years, Occu : Labour;
7. Sau. Sadhana Vijay Misal
Aged : 34 Years, Occu : Household;
8. Anjali Madhukar Misal
Aged : 20 Years, Occu : Nil;
9. Suman Sahebrao Jadhao
Aged : 72 Years, Occu : Household;
R/o Kinhola, Tahsil Chikhli, District
Buldhana.
10. Smt. Shakuntala Bansiram Misal
Aged : 75 Years, Occu : Nil;
2/6 916.Judg.APL.853.2020.odt
Nos. 3 to 8 and 10 R/o Amdapur, Tahsil
Chikhli, District Buldhana. ... APPLICANTS
VERSUS
1. State of Maharashtra
Through Police Station, Khamgaon (City),
Tahsil Khamgaon, District Buldhana.
2. Sau. Vinita Pravin Hiwade
Aged about : 28 Years, Occu : House Wife;
R/o Samarth Nagar, Khamgaon, Tahsil
Khamgaon, District Buldhana. ... NON -APPLICANTS
Mr. Aniket Tapdiya, Advocate h/f Mr. R. V. Gahilot, Advocate for Applicants.
Ms. S. V. Kolhe, APP for Non-applicant No.1/State.
None for the Non-applicant No.2.
CORAM : PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.
DATE : JANUARY 14, 2026.
ORAL JUDGMENT
. At the outset it is pointed out that the Applicant No.10 is expired
before filing of the chargesheet, therefore, leave is granted to the Applicants to
delete the name of Applicant No.10 from the array of Applicants in the present
Application. Necessary correction be carried out in cause-title of the
Application forthwith.
2. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable with the consent of learned
3/6 916.Judg.APL.853.2020.odt
Counsel appearing for both sides. None appeared for the Non-applicant No.2,
though served.
3. The present Application is preferred by the Applicants for
quashing of the First Information Report dated 15/9/2020 in connection with
Crime No. 476/2020 registered with Police Station, Khamgaon (City), District
Buldhana for the offence punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34
of Indian Penal Code as well as Chargesheet No. 97/2024 dated 10/6/2024
filed in Crime No. 476/2020.
4. The Applicant No.1 is husband of the Non-applicant No.2 namely,
Sau. Vinita Hiwade and Applicant Nos.2 to 10 are relatives of the Applicant
No.1/husband.
5. The Applicants approached before this Court with the submission
that even if the contents of FIR and Chargesheet are taken on its face value,
same do not constitute an offence under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of
Indian Penal Code.
6. Per contra, the learned APP strongly opposed the Application by
stating that the marriage of the Applicant No.1 and Complainant was
4/6 916.Judg.APL.853.2020.odt
solemnized on 24/6/2012 and out of the said wedlock they blessed with a
female child on 13/3/2014 and since then there was a mental and physical
harassment to her. It is pointed out from the complaint and statement of the
Complainant that Applicant/husband used to demand Rs.5,00,000/- from her
parents. It is also pointed out that after their matrimonial discord one
proceeding arising out of the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act was filed by the Non-applicant No.2/Complainant and the same
was compromised between the parties. However, after compromise, the
Applicant/husband did not cohabit with her, and therefore, the Non-applicant
No.2 has filed the police complaint against the Applicants. As such, it is the
submission of Non-applicant No.2 that she was misguided by the Applicant
No.1/husband. Therefore, complaint is lodged in the matter against the
Applicants who are instigating the Applicant No.1 in the matter.
7. After hearing learned Counsel for both sides and after perusal of
the record it is crystal clear that the allegations made against the relatives of
the Applicant/husband are not specific. No instance is quoted as to how the
relatives of Applicant/husband used to harass other than claiming that
Applicant No.1 harassed her and other Applicant Nos.2 to 9 instigated him to
do so. The Non-applicant No.2 has not provided any specific details or
5/6 916.Judg.APL.853.2020.odt
described any particular instance of harassment. The Non-applicant No.2 did
not mention the date, time and place or manner in which the alleged
harassment occurred. Therefore, the complaint as well as statement recorded
during the course of investigation lacks concrete and precise allegations. The
allegation of harassment against the Applicants, prima facie, seems to be vague
and omnibus in nature.
8. As per the settled principles of law as laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the cases of Kahkashan Kausar Alias Sonam and Others V/s
State of Bihar and Others, (2022) 6 Supreme Court Cases 599 and Preeti
Gupta and Another V/s State of Jharkhand and Another, (2010) 7 Supreme
Court Cases 667, the tendency of implicating the relatives of husband on vague
allegations now a days is common. However, in such cases, in absence of
specific allegation the relatives of the husband cannot be implicated in the
matrimonial dispute.
9. In the light of above, by applying the law as aforementioned, I
have examined the entire material. On perusal of the record it is clear that
neither specific allegations are made against the relatives of the
6/6 916.Judg.APL.853.2020.odt
Applicant/husband in the matter nor specific instances are quoted as to how
she has been harassed by the relatives of the Applicant/husband.
10. Hence, considering the entire factual and legal aspect of the
matter, I am of the considered opinion that no offence is made out against the
Applicant Nos.2 to 9. Only the allegations are made against the Applicant
No.1/husband, therefore, I am not inclined to quash the FIR and Chargesheet
against the Applicant No.1. In the result, I proceed to pass following order.
ORDER
1. Criminal Application is partly allowed.
2. The Chargesheet No. 97/2024 dated 10/6/2024 filed in Crime No.
476/2020 registered with Police Station, Khamgaon (City), District
Buldhana for the offence punishable under Section 498-A read with
Section 34 of Indian Penal Code is hereby quashed and set aside
against the Applicant Nos.2 to 9.
3. The proceeding against the Applicant No.1 shall be continued.
4. Rule is made absolute in above terms.
5. No order as to costs.
[PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.]
vijaya
Signed by: Mrs. V.G. Yadav
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 16/01/2026 16:39:08
