Full Judgment Text
2026:BHC-NAG:4623-DB
29.apl.1980.2025.Judgment.odt
( 1 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.1980 OF 2025
1) Ananta s/o Samadhan Tayade, (Husband)
Age- 30 years, Occupation - Service,
2) Parvatabai w/d Samadhan Tayade,
Aged about- 55 years, (Mother-in-law)
Occupation -Homemaker,
Both permanent R/o Samta Colony,
Khamgaon, District Buldana.
Presently R/o Nimbeshwar Bhumi,
Usali Road, Vichumbe,
New Panwel - 410206.
3) Sau. Manda w/o Subhash Wawge, (Sister-in-law)
Age-38 years, Occupation - Service,
(Brother-in-law)
4) Subhash s/o Maroti Wawge,
Age-40, Occupation - Service,
Both no.3 & 4 R/o BahekarNagar,
Nandura, Tahsil Nandura,
District Buldana.
5) Sau. Ketki w/o Pravin Chopade, (Sister-in-law)
Age-36 years, Occupation - Service.
6) Pravin s/o Dnyaneshwar Chopade, (Brother-in Law)
Age-40 years, Occupation - Service.
Both no.5 & 6 R/o Shivaji Putla,
Malibhawan, Nandura,
District Buldana. At Present
R/o Shashkiya Tantra Niketan,
Jalna, Tahsil & District Jalna.
7) Sau. Seema w/o Amol Yenkar, (Sister-in-Law)
Age-34 years, Occupation - Service,
8) Amol s/o Rajaramji Yenkar, (Brother-In Law)
Age-38 years, Occupation – Service.
Both Nos. 7 & 8 R/o Jilha Parishad
29.apl.1980.2025.Judgment.odt
( 2 )
Pirkalyan, Bhokardan Road,
Jalna, Tahsil and District - Jalna.
9) Sau, Shubhangi W/o Rupesh Wankhade, (Sister-in-Law)
Age-32 years, Occupation - Service,
10) Rupesh s/o Shrikrushna Wankhade, (Brother-in-Law)
Age-36 Years, Occupation - Service.
Both Nos. 9 and 10
R/o Shaskiya Tantra Niketan,
Chhatrapati Sambhaji Nagar,
(Aurangabad). .... APPLICANTS
// VERSUS //
1) State of Maharashtra Through
Police Station Officer,
Police Station, Jalgaon (Jamod),
District Buldhana.
2) Sau. Neha w/o Ananta Tayade,
Age-24 Years,
Occupation - Household work,
C/o Sudhakar Haribhau Wankhade,
At present R/o Deshmukh Colony,
Jalgao (Jamod),
Tahsil - Jalgaon, District – Buldana. ....NON-APPLICANTS
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mr. V. T. Suryawanshi, Advocate for applicants.
Mr. A. M. Joshi, APP for non-applicant No.1/State.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
DATED : 05/03/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard.
2. Admit .
3. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel
for the applicants and learned APP for the State.
29.apl.1980.2025.Judgment.odt
( 3 )
4. Despite the service of notice, none appears for the
non-applicant No.2.
5. The applicants who are husband and in-laws of the
non-applicant No.2 are arraigned as an accused in connection
with Crime No. 557/2025 registered with Police Station Jalgaon
(Jamod), District Buldhana for the offence punishable under
Sections 85, 296, 115(2), 351(3), 352 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
6. The crime is registered on the basis of a report lodged
by the non-applicant No.2 on an allegation that her marriage was
performed with the applicant No.2 on 23.11.2024. The applicant
No.2 is her mother-in-law and applicant Nos.3, 5, 7 and 9 are
the sister-in-law, whereas the applicant Nos.4, 6, 8 and 10 are
the brother-in-law. As per her allegations, all the marriage
expenses are incurred by her parents, but as soon as she came
home after the marriage, the ill-treatment was started to her at
the hands of the present applicants, as all the applicants were
taunting her for not giving respect in the marriage as well as for
not giving good quality articles in the marriage. She was also
taunted as she was not cooking the food well. It is alleged by
her that on various occasions, on the instigation of the other
applicants, the applicant No.1 has abused her as well as
physically and mentally tortured her, and demanded amount
29.apl.1980.2025.Judgment.odt
( 4 )
from her for the purchase of a flat in Mumbai. She was
threatened that if she fails to bring the amount, he would give
her divorce. She has specifically stated that on 31.03.2025
when she had been to her matrimonial house at her native place,
she was abused and detained in one room. On the basis of the
said report, police have registered the crime against the present
applicants.
7. Heard learned counsel Mr. Suryawanshi for the
applicants, who submitted that the story narrated by the
non-applicant No.2 itself appears to be improbable and
unacceptable. It is unacceptable that on the day of the marriage
itself, when she came to matrimonial house she was ill-treated, it
is a well drafted complaint only to implicate the present
applicants in the false offence. He submitted that no specific
instances are narrated as far as the ill-treatment is concerned.
It was the non-applicant No.2, who was not willing to cohabit
with the present applicant No.1 and therefore, this false FIR is
lodged against all the applicants. He submitted that even
accepting the allegation as it is, by no stretch of imagination it
can be said that offence is made out against the present
applicants. As there is no wilful conduct on the part of the
present applicants, which is a necessary ingredient to constitute
the offence. In view of that, the application deserves to be
allowed.
29.apl.1980.2025.Judgment.odt
( 5 )
8. Per contra, learned APP strongly opposed the said
contention and submitted that considering the specific allegations
levelled against the present applicants and the specific role
attributed to them, the application deserves to be rejected.
9. On hearing both sides and on perusal of the entire
recitals of the FIR and the investigation papers, it reveals that as
per the allegations it was the applicant No.1 who was abusing
the informant and specific instances are narrated against the
applicant No.1. It is apparent that the implication of the
applicant Nos.2 to 10 is merely because they are the relatives of
the husband of the non-applicant No.2. No specific instances are
narrated as far as the ill-treatment at their hands are concerned.
It is pertinent to note that the applicant Nos.3, 5, 7 and 9 are
the sister-in-law who has already married and they are residing
at their husband’s place respectively. The applicant Nos.4, 6, 8
and 10 are the brother-in-law, they are also residing along with
their family at a different place. There is no occasion for them to
visit the matrimonial house of the present non-applicant No.2
and ill-treat her. It is further apparent that she was residing at
Panwel along with her husband and no other applicants were
residing along with her. Thus, it is apparent that as the dispute
arose between the husband and wife, this FIR came to be
lodged.
29.apl.1980.2025.Judgment.odt
( 6 )
10. To attract the offence punishable under Section 498A
and to ascertain whether the non-applicant No.2 has suffered
any cruelty at the hands of the present applicants. The
explanation to section 498A requires to be considered. For the
purpose of Section 498A cruelty means any wilful 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 life, limb or health
(whether mental or physical) of the woman; or harassment of
the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her
or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for
any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by
her or any person related to her to meet such demand. There is
no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XXA containing
Section 498A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the torture
to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband.
Section 498A was added with a view to punishing a husband and
his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her
relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. In any event the
wilful act or conduct ought to be the proximate cause in order to
bring home the charge under Section 498A of IPC. To have an
event sometime back cannot be termed to be a factum taken
note of in the matter of a charge under Sections 498A. The
legislative intent is clear enough to indicate in particular
reference to Explanation (b) that there shall have to be a series
29.apl.1980.2025.Judgment.odt
( 7 )
of acts in order to be a harassment within the meaning of
Explanation (b).
11. In the light of the above requirement, if the allegations
are taken into considerations admittedly no prima facie case is
made out as far as the applicant Nos.2 to 10 are concerned,
therefore, the application deserves to be allowed partly.
Accordingly, I proceed to pass following order:
ORDER
(i) The application is allowed partly .
(ii) The FIR in connection with Crime No.
557/2025 registered with Police Station Jalgaon
(Jamod), District Buldhana for the offence punishable
under Sections 85, 296, 115(2), 351(3), 352 and 3(5)
of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, is hereby
quashed and set aside to the extent of the present
applicant Nos.2 to 10.
(iii) The prayer of the applicant No.1 Ananta s/o
Samadhan Tayade for quashing of the FIR is hereby
rejected.
The application is disposed of.
(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J)
Sarkate.
Signed by: Mr. A.R. Sarkate
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 23/03/2026 19:28:44
29.apl.1980.2025.Judgment.odt
( 1 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.1980 OF 2025
1) Ananta s/o Samadhan Tayade, (Husband)
Age- 30 years, Occupation - Service,
2) Parvatabai w/d Samadhan Tayade,
Aged about- 55 years, (Mother-in-law)
Occupation -Homemaker,
Both permanent R/o Samta Colony,
Khamgaon, District Buldana.
Presently R/o Nimbeshwar Bhumi,
Usali Road, Vichumbe,
New Panwel - 410206.
3) Sau. Manda w/o Subhash Wawge, (Sister-in-law)
Age-38 years, Occupation - Service,
(Brother-in-law)
4) Subhash s/o Maroti Wawge,
Age-40, Occupation - Service,
Both no.3 & 4 R/o BahekarNagar,
Nandura, Tahsil Nandura,
District Buldana.
5) Sau. Ketki w/o Pravin Chopade, (Sister-in-law)
Age-36 years, Occupation - Service.
6) Pravin s/o Dnyaneshwar Chopade, (Brother-in Law)
Age-40 years, Occupation - Service.
Both no.5 & 6 R/o Shivaji Putla,
Malibhawan, Nandura,
District Buldana. At Present
R/o Shashkiya Tantra Niketan,
Jalna, Tahsil & District Jalna.
7) Sau. Seema w/o Amol Yenkar, (Sister-in-Law)
Age-34 years, Occupation - Service,
8) Amol s/o Rajaramji Yenkar, (Brother-In Law)
Age-38 years, Occupation – Service.
Both Nos. 7 & 8 R/o Jilha Parishad
29.apl.1980.2025.Judgment.odt
( 2 )
Pirkalyan, Bhokardan Road,
Jalna, Tahsil and District - Jalna.
9) Sau, Shubhangi W/o Rupesh Wankhade, (Sister-in-Law)
Age-32 years, Occupation - Service,
10) Rupesh s/o Shrikrushna Wankhade, (Brother-in-Law)
Age-36 Years, Occupation - Service.
Both Nos. 9 and 10
R/o Shaskiya Tantra Niketan,
Chhatrapati Sambhaji Nagar,
(Aurangabad). .... APPLICANTS
// VERSUS //
1) State of Maharashtra Through
Police Station Officer,
Police Station, Jalgaon (Jamod),
District Buldhana.
2) Sau. Neha w/o Ananta Tayade,
Age-24 Years,
Occupation - Household work,
C/o Sudhakar Haribhau Wankhade,
At present R/o Deshmukh Colony,
Jalgao (Jamod),
Tahsil - Jalgaon, District – Buldana. ....NON-APPLICANTS
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mr. V. T. Suryawanshi, Advocate for applicants.
Mr. A. M. Joshi, APP for non-applicant No.1/State.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
DATED : 05/03/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard.
2. Admit .
3. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel
for the applicants and learned APP for the State.
29.apl.1980.2025.Judgment.odt
( 3 )
4. Despite the service of notice, none appears for the
non-applicant No.2.
5. The applicants who are husband and in-laws of the
non-applicant No.2 are arraigned as an accused in connection
with Crime No. 557/2025 registered with Police Station Jalgaon
(Jamod), District Buldhana for the offence punishable under
Sections 85, 296, 115(2), 351(3), 352 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
6. The crime is registered on the basis of a report lodged
by the non-applicant No.2 on an allegation that her marriage was
performed with the applicant No.2 on 23.11.2024. The applicant
No.2 is her mother-in-law and applicant Nos.3, 5, 7 and 9 are
the sister-in-law, whereas the applicant Nos.4, 6, 8 and 10 are
the brother-in-law. As per her allegations, all the marriage
expenses are incurred by her parents, but as soon as she came
home after the marriage, the ill-treatment was started to her at
the hands of the present applicants, as all the applicants were
taunting her for not giving respect in the marriage as well as for
not giving good quality articles in the marriage. She was also
taunted as she was not cooking the food well. It is alleged by
her that on various occasions, on the instigation of the other
applicants, the applicant No.1 has abused her as well as
physically and mentally tortured her, and demanded amount
29.apl.1980.2025.Judgment.odt
( 4 )
from her for the purchase of a flat in Mumbai. She was
threatened that if she fails to bring the amount, he would give
her divorce. She has specifically stated that on 31.03.2025
when she had been to her matrimonial house at her native place,
she was abused and detained in one room. On the basis of the
said report, police have registered the crime against the present
applicants.
7. Heard learned counsel Mr. Suryawanshi for the
applicants, who submitted that the story narrated by the
non-applicant No.2 itself appears to be improbable and
unacceptable. It is unacceptable that on the day of the marriage
itself, when she came to matrimonial house she was ill-treated, it
is a well drafted complaint only to implicate the present
applicants in the false offence. He submitted that no specific
instances are narrated as far as the ill-treatment is concerned.
It was the non-applicant No.2, who was not willing to cohabit
with the present applicant No.1 and therefore, this false FIR is
lodged against all the applicants. He submitted that even
accepting the allegation as it is, by no stretch of imagination it
can be said that offence is made out against the present
applicants. As there is no wilful conduct on the part of the
present applicants, which is a necessary ingredient to constitute
the offence. In view of that, the application deserves to be
allowed.
29.apl.1980.2025.Judgment.odt
( 5 )
8. Per contra, learned APP strongly opposed the said
contention and submitted that considering the specific allegations
levelled against the present applicants and the specific role
attributed to them, the application deserves to be rejected.
9. On hearing both sides and on perusal of the entire
recitals of the FIR and the investigation papers, it reveals that as
per the allegations it was the applicant No.1 who was abusing
the informant and specific instances are narrated against the
applicant No.1. It is apparent that the implication of the
applicant Nos.2 to 10 is merely because they are the relatives of
the husband of the non-applicant No.2. No specific instances are
narrated as far as the ill-treatment at their hands are concerned.
It is pertinent to note that the applicant Nos.3, 5, 7 and 9 are
the sister-in-law who has already married and they are residing
at their husband’s place respectively. The applicant Nos.4, 6, 8
and 10 are the brother-in-law, they are also residing along with
their family at a different place. There is no occasion for them to
visit the matrimonial house of the present non-applicant No.2
and ill-treat her. It is further apparent that she was residing at
Panwel along with her husband and no other applicants were
residing along with her. Thus, it is apparent that as the dispute
arose between the husband and wife, this FIR came to be
lodged.
29.apl.1980.2025.Judgment.odt
( 6 )
10. To attract the offence punishable under Section 498A
and to ascertain whether the non-applicant No.2 has suffered
any cruelty at the hands of the present applicants. The
explanation to section 498A requires to be considered. For the
purpose of Section 498A cruelty means any wilful 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 life, limb or health
(whether mental or physical) of the woman; or harassment of
the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her
or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for
any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by
her or any person related to her to meet such demand. There is
no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XXA containing
Section 498A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the torture
to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband.
Section 498A was added with a view to punishing a husband and
his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her
relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. In any event the
wilful act or conduct ought to be the proximate cause in order to
bring home the charge under Section 498A of IPC. To have an
event sometime back cannot be termed to be a factum taken
note of in the matter of a charge under Sections 498A. The
legislative intent is clear enough to indicate in particular
reference to Explanation (b) that there shall have to be a series
29.apl.1980.2025.Judgment.odt
( 7 )
of acts in order to be a harassment within the meaning of
Explanation (b).
11. In the light of the above requirement, if the allegations
are taken into considerations admittedly no prima facie case is
made out as far as the applicant Nos.2 to 10 are concerned,
therefore, the application deserves to be allowed partly.
Accordingly, I proceed to pass following order:
ORDER
(i) The application is allowed partly .
(ii) The FIR in connection with Crime No.
557/2025 registered with Police Station Jalgaon
(Jamod), District Buldhana for the offence punishable
under Sections 85, 296, 115(2), 351(3), 352 and 3(5)
of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, is hereby
quashed and set aside to the extent of the present
applicant Nos.2 to 10.
(iii) The prayer of the applicant No.1 Ananta s/o
Samadhan Tayade for quashing of the FIR is hereby
rejected.
The application is disposed of.
(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J)
Sarkate.
Signed by: Mr. A.R. Sarkate
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 23/03/2026 19:28:44