[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Mandakini Bhanukumar Bangale And ... vs The State Of Mah. Thr. The Pso, Washim Tq ... on 19 January, 2026

2026:BHC-NAG:922-DB




              Judgment

                                                                5 apl517.23

                                          1

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                          NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

                      CRIMINAL APPLICATION APL NO.517 OF 2023

              1. Smt.Mandakini Bhanukumar Bangale
              aged about 75 years, occupation: household
              Suyash Apartment, plot No.30, Arni Road,
              Ranapratap Nagar, Yavatmal, taluka and district
              Yavatmal.

              2. Jitendra Bhanukumar Bangale,
              aged about 52 years, occupation : household,
              Suyash Apartment, plot No.30, Arni Road,
              Ranapratap Nagar, Yavatmal, taluka and district
              Yavatmal.

              3. Sunetra Santosh Rukhane,
              aged about 44 years, occupation household,
              r/o Rangaripura Karanja Lad, taluka
              Karanja-Lad, district Washim.

              4. Shashank Santosh Rukhane
              aged about 25 years, occupation student
              r/o Rangaripura Karanja Lad, taluka
              Karanja-Lad, district Washim.   ..... Applicants.

                                  :: V E R S U S ::

              1.The State of Maharashtra, through the
              Police Station Officer, Washim, taluka and
              district Washim.



                                                                   .....2/-
 Judgment

                                                    5 apl517.23

                             2

2. Sau.Anuradaha w/o Vishal Bangale,
aged major, occupation household,
r/o behind R.A.College, Washim, taluka and
district Washim.          ..... Non-applicants.
==============================
Shri A.S.Deshpande, Counsel for the Applicants.
Shri A.M.Kadukar, APP for Non-applicant No.1/State.
Shri S.D.Chande, Counsel for NA No.2.
==============================
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
DATE : 19/01/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Heard learned counsel Shri A.S.Deshpande for the

applicants, learned APP Shri A.M.Kadukar for the non-

applicant No.1/State, and learned counsel Shri S.D.Chande for

the non-applicant No.2 (the informant). Admit. Heard finally

by consent of the parties.

2. By this application, the applicants seek quashing and

setting aside FIR in connection with Crime No.79/2023

registered for offences under Sections 323, 498-A, 504, and

506 read with 34 of the IPC and consequent proceeding

arising out of the same bearing RCC No.433/2025.

.....3/-

Judgment

5 apl517.23

3. The applicant No.1 is mother-in-law and other

applicants are the nearest relatives of the husband of the

informant. They are arrayed as accused in connection with

the above said crime on allegations that the marriage of the

informant was performed with Vishal Bhanukumar Bangale,

who is son of applicant No.1, on 16.5.2017. After the

marriage, she resumed cohabitation at the house of the

applicants. As per allegations, after the marriage, her husband

and the applicants started ill-treating for one or the other

reasons. She further alleged that her husband has demanded

amount Rs.1,50,000/- from her parents for purchasing a plot

and she has disclosed the said incident to her parents through

telephonic call. It is further alleged that her sister-in-law and

her son used to quarrel with her. On various occasions, she

tried to convince, but they have physically and mentally ill-

treated her, due to which she was constrained to leave the

matrimonial house. She has further stated that from the said

.....4/-

Judgment

5 apl517.23

wedlock, she has two children. On the basis of the said report,

the police have registered the crime against the applicants.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that as far

as applicants are concerned, the nature of allegations is "wear

and tear in nature". No specific instances are narrated against

the applicant, as far as allegations are concerned. There is no

willful conduct on the part of the applicants. Even,

considering the allegations as it is at its face value, no offence

is made out as it nowhere discloses any willful conduct on the

part of the applicants to ill-treat her. It is apparent that they

are implicated merely because they are the relatives of the

husband of the informant. After birth of two children, the

dispute arose between informant and her husband and,

therefore, the FIR came to be lodged. He submitted that

considering the nature of the evidence, no purpose would be

served by forcing them to face trial. In view of that, the

application deserves to be allowed.

.....5/-

Judgment

5 apl517.23

5. Per contra, learned APP for the State and learned

counsel for informant strongly opposed the said contentions

and submitted that considering a detailed statement of the

informant, it discloses the ill-treatment at the hands of the

applicants and, therefore, prima facie case is made out against

the applicants.

Learned counsel for the informant submitted that there

is a specific allegation as far as mother-in-law of the informant

is concerned and in view of that, the application deserves to be

rejected.

6. On hearing both the sides and perusing the entire

investigation papers, it reveals that the applicant No.1 is the

mother-in-law and applicant No.2 is elder brother of the

husband and applicant No.3 is sister-in-law and applicant No.4

is the son of the sister-in-law. Perusal of the FIR reveals that as

far as the husband is concerned, there is a specific allegation

as to the demand, but as far as the other applicants are

.....6/-

Judgment

5 apl517.23

concerned against whom general and vague allegation is

levelled as to instigation and the ill-treatment on domestic

reasons. Admittedly, no specific instances are narrated. A

careful scrutiny of the FIR shows that vague, general and

omnibus allegations are made against the applicants regarding

ill-treatment for trifle reasons.

7. Requirement under Section 498-A of the IPC is

concerned, for which willful conduct is necessary requirement,

the same is absent in the present case.

8. At this stage, a reference can be given to the

observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Preeti

Gupta and anr vs. State of Jharkhand and anr, reported in

(2010)7 SCC 667 wherein it has been in paragraph Nos.30, 32

and 34 held as under:

"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

.....7/-

Judgment

5 apl517.23

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 the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come 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 are also a matter of serious concern.

34. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualized by the complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations".

9. In view of the above observations, if the facts and

circumstances of the present case are taken into consideration,

.....8/-

Judgment

5 apl517.23

it is apparent that the applicants are implicated merely

because they are relatives of the husband of the informant.

This aspect is also considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the

case Dara Laxmi Narayana and ors vs. State of Telangana and

anr, reported in MANU/SC/1309/2024 wherein the Hon'ble

Apex Court has made it clear that, "family members of the

husband ought not to be unnecessarily roped into criminal