Full Judgment Text
2026:BHC-NAG:960-DB
1 116.APL.140-2023.JUDGMENT.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 140 OF 2023
1. Pravin S/o Tukaramji Uike Patil,
Aged about 36 yrs., Occ. Service,
2. Rekha W/o Tukaramji Uike Patil,
Aged about 64 yrs., Occ. Household,
3. Tukaram S/o Shivramji Uike,
Aged about 69 yrs., Occ. Nil,
Nos.1 to 3 R/o. House No.2, Goho
Layout, Shindhi Meghe, Wardha.
4. Prabhakar S/o Domaji Uike,
Aged about 47 yrs., Occ: Service as a
Teacher,
R/o Mahada Colony, Shindhi Meghe,
Wardha.
5. Ganesh s/o Devidas Yedme,
Aged about 40 yrs., Occ. Service as a
Teacher,
Plot No. 16, Nanduri Road, Sant
Tukdoji Ward, Shankar Nagar,
Hinganghat, Wardha. APPLICANTS
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through Police Station Officer,
Police Station Gadgenagar,
Tq. and District- Amravati.
2. Sau. Priyanka W/o Pravin Uike,
Aged about 32 yrs., Occ. Service,
2 116.APL.140-2023.JUDGMENT.odt
R/o. Near Charade Mangalkarayala,
Karanja (Ghadge),
Tah. Karanja (Ghadge), Dist.
Wardha, and Walgaon Road, Near
Changapur Railway Crossing,
Ghadge Nagar, Amravati. NON-APPLICANTS
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mr. R.D. Karode, Advocate for the Applicants.
Mr. A.M. Joshi, APP for the Non-applicant No.1/State.
Mr. A.P. Thakare, Advocate for the Non-applicant No.2.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.
th
DATED : 20 JANUARY, 2026.
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
1. Heard.
2. ADMIT. Heard finally by the consent of learned
Counsel for the respective parties.
3. The present Application is preferred by the
Applicants who are the nearest relatives of the husband under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of
the First Information Report in connection with Crime
No.1447/2022 registered with Police Station Gadge Nagar,
3 116.APL.140-2023.JUDGMENT.odt
Amravati for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A read
with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. Heard learned Counsel for the Applicants who
submitted that, the Applicant No.1 is the husband and others
are the nearest relatives of the husband. The crime is registered
on the basis of a report lodged by the Non-applicant No.2
against the present Applicants on an allegation that her
marriage was performed with the Applicant No.1 on
19.05.2019. After marriage she resumed the cohabitation at the
house of the present Applicants but she was ill-treated by the
present Applicants for various reasons including that she has not
begotten a son. She was abused on that count also. It is further
alleged that, the Applicant No.1 used to physically assault her
on various counts and other Applicants were instigating him.
She has further alleged that, all the Applicants were demanding
money from her for various reasons and they were interfering in
the matrimonial life, and therefore, there used to be quarrels
between them. On the basis of the said report Police have
registered the crime against the present Applicants.
4 116.APL.140-2023.JUDGMENT.odt
5. He submitted that, even accepting the allegations as
it is no overt act is attributed to any of the Applicants merely
because the dispute arose between the husband and wife, the
false report is lodged against the present Applicants. He
submitted that, in view of the requirement of Section 498-A of
IPC, some wilful conduct appears to be there on the part of the
present Applicants, which is absent. In view of that, the
Application deserves to be allowed.
6. Per contra, learned APP strongly opposed the same
and submitted that considering the detail statement of the
Informant while lodging the FIR, wherein she has narrated the
entire incidence, and therefore, specific allegations are levelled
against all the present Applicants. In view of that, prima facie
case is made out against the present Applicants, and therefore,
the Application deserves to be rejected.
7. Learned Counsel for the Non-applicant No.2, has
endorsed the same contentions and invited my attention
towards the statement of the Non-applicant No.2 and submitted
that specific instances are also narrated by her, and therefore,
the Application deserves to be rejected.
5 116.APL.140-2023.JUDGMENT.odt
8. On hearing both the sides and on perusal of the
entire FIR and the detail recitals of the FIR it reveals that, the
marriage between the Non-applicant No.2 and Applicant No.1
was performed on 19.05.2019 and thereafter she begotten one
daughter. As far as the husband/Applicant No.1 is concerned,
there is specific allegation that he was physically as well as
mentally harassing her by beating her but as far as the other
Applicants are concerned, admittedly general, omnibus and
vague allegations are levelled against them without narrating
any specific instances.
9. At this stage, reference can be given to Section
498-A of IPC, which reads as under:
“498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman
subjecting her to cruelty.—Whoever, being the husband or
the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such
woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for
a term which may extend to three years and shall also be
liable to fine.
Explanation.—For the purpose of this Section, “cruelty”
means-
(a) 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
(b) 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
6 116.APL.140-2023.JUDGMENT.odt
security or is on account of failure by her or any person
related to her to meet such demand.”
10. On perusal of the entire allegations, as far as the
Applicant Nos. 2 to 5 are concerned, admittedly general,
omnibus and vague allegations are levelled against them.
11. The tendency of implicating all the relatives is also
commented by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dara
Lakshmi Narayana & Ors. Vs. State of Telangana & Ors.,
MANU/SC/1309/2024, wherein it is held that family members
of the husband ought not to be unnecessarily roped into
criminal proceedings arising out of matrimonial discord. 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.
12. It is apparent that, the Applicant Nos. 2 to 5 are
implicated merely because they are the relatives of the
Applicant No.1. As far as the wilful conduct is concerned, the
same requirement is absent. In view of that, the Application
7 116.APL.140-2023.JUDGMENT.odt
deserves to be allowed partly. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the
following order.
O R D E R
i. Criminal Application is partly allowed.
ii. The prayer of the Applicant No.1 for quashing of the
FIR, is hereby rejected.
iii. The prayer of Applicant No.2/Rekha W/o Tukaramji
Uike Patil, Applicant No.3/Tukaram S/o Shivramji
Uike, Applicant, No.4/Prabhakar S/o Domaji Uike
and Applicant No.5/Ganesh s/o Devidas Yedme,
for quashing of First Information Report in
connection with Crime No. 1447/2022 registered
with Police Station Gadge Nagar, Amravati for the
offence punishable under Sections 498-A read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, is hereby
quashed and set aside.
13. Pending application/s, if any, shall stand disposed of
accordingly.
(URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.)
S.D.Bhimte
Signed by: Mr.S.D.Bhimte
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 21/01/2026 18:29:55
1 116.APL.140-2023.JUDGMENT.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 140 OF 2023
1. Pravin S/o Tukaramji Uike Patil,
Aged about 36 yrs., Occ. Service,
2. Rekha W/o Tukaramji Uike Patil,
Aged about 64 yrs., Occ. Household,
3. Tukaram S/o Shivramji Uike,
Aged about 69 yrs., Occ. Nil,
Nos.1 to 3 R/o. House No.2, Goho
Layout, Shindhi Meghe, Wardha.
4. Prabhakar S/o Domaji Uike,
Aged about 47 yrs., Occ: Service as a
Teacher,
R/o Mahada Colony, Shindhi Meghe,
Wardha.
5. Ganesh s/o Devidas Yedme,
Aged about 40 yrs., Occ. Service as a
Teacher,
Plot No. 16, Nanduri Road, Sant
Tukdoji Ward, Shankar Nagar,
Hinganghat, Wardha. APPLICANTS
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through Police Station Officer,
Police Station Gadgenagar,
Tq. and District- Amravati.
2. Sau. Priyanka W/o Pravin Uike,
Aged about 32 yrs., Occ. Service,
2 116.APL.140-2023.JUDGMENT.odt
R/o. Near Charade Mangalkarayala,
Karanja (Ghadge),
Tah. Karanja (Ghadge), Dist.
Wardha, and Walgaon Road, Near
Changapur Railway Crossing,
Ghadge Nagar, Amravati. NON-APPLICANTS
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mr. R.D. Karode, Advocate for the Applicants.
Mr. A.M. Joshi, APP for the Non-applicant No.1/State.
Mr. A.P. Thakare, Advocate for the Non-applicant No.2.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.
th
DATED : 20 JANUARY, 2026.
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
1. Heard.
2. ADMIT. Heard finally by the consent of learned
Counsel for the respective parties.
3. The present Application is preferred by the
Applicants who are the nearest relatives of the husband under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of
the First Information Report in connection with Crime
No.1447/2022 registered with Police Station Gadge Nagar,
3 116.APL.140-2023.JUDGMENT.odt
Amravati for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A read
with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. Heard learned Counsel for the Applicants who
submitted that, the Applicant No.1 is the husband and others
are the nearest relatives of the husband. The crime is registered
on the basis of a report lodged by the Non-applicant No.2
against the present Applicants on an allegation that her
marriage was performed with the Applicant No.1 on
19.05.2019. After marriage she resumed the cohabitation at the
house of the present Applicants but she was ill-treated by the
present Applicants for various reasons including that she has not
begotten a son. She was abused on that count also. It is further
alleged that, the Applicant No.1 used to physically assault her
on various counts and other Applicants were instigating him.
She has further alleged that, all the Applicants were demanding
money from her for various reasons and they were interfering in
the matrimonial life, and therefore, there used to be quarrels
between them. On the basis of the said report Police have
registered the crime against the present Applicants.
4 116.APL.140-2023.JUDGMENT.odt
5. He submitted that, even accepting the allegations as
it is no overt act is attributed to any of the Applicants merely
because the dispute arose between the husband and wife, the
false report is lodged against the present Applicants. He
submitted that, in view of the requirement of Section 498-A of
IPC, some wilful conduct appears to be there on the part of the
present Applicants, which is absent. In view of that, the
Application deserves to be allowed.
6. Per contra, learned APP strongly opposed the same
and submitted that considering the detail statement of the
Informant while lodging the FIR, wherein she has narrated the
entire incidence, and therefore, specific allegations are levelled
against all the present Applicants. In view of that, prima facie
case is made out against the present Applicants, and therefore,
the Application deserves to be rejected.
7. Learned Counsel for the Non-applicant No.2, has
endorsed the same contentions and invited my attention
towards the statement of the Non-applicant No.2 and submitted
that specific instances are also narrated by her, and therefore,
the Application deserves to be rejected.
5 116.APL.140-2023.JUDGMENT.odt
8. On hearing both the sides and on perusal of the
entire FIR and the detail recitals of the FIR it reveals that, the
marriage between the Non-applicant No.2 and Applicant No.1
was performed on 19.05.2019 and thereafter she begotten one
daughter. As far as the husband/Applicant No.1 is concerned,
there is specific allegation that he was physically as well as
mentally harassing her by beating her but as far as the other
Applicants are concerned, admittedly general, omnibus and
vague allegations are levelled against them without narrating
any specific instances.
9. At this stage, reference can be given to Section
498-A of IPC, which reads as under:
“498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman
subjecting her to cruelty.—Whoever, being the husband or
the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such
woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for
a term which may extend to three years and shall also be
liable to fine.
Explanation.—For the purpose of this Section, “cruelty”
means-
(a) 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
(b) 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
6 116.APL.140-2023.JUDGMENT.odt
security or is on account of failure by her or any person
related to her to meet such demand.”
10. On perusal of the entire allegations, as far as the
Applicant Nos. 2 to 5 are concerned, admittedly general,
omnibus and vague allegations are levelled against them.
11. The tendency of implicating all the relatives is also
commented by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dara
Lakshmi Narayana & Ors. Vs. State of Telangana & Ors.,
MANU/SC/1309/2024, wherein it is held that family members
of the husband ought not to be unnecessarily roped into
criminal proceedings arising out of matrimonial discord. 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.
12. It is apparent that, the Applicant Nos. 2 to 5 are
implicated merely because they are the relatives of the
Applicant No.1. As far as the wilful conduct is concerned, the
same requirement is absent. In view of that, the Application
7 116.APL.140-2023.JUDGMENT.odt
deserves to be allowed partly. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the
following order.
O R D E R
i. Criminal Application is partly allowed.
ii. The prayer of the Applicant No.1 for quashing of the
FIR, is hereby rejected.
iii. The prayer of Applicant No.2/Rekha W/o Tukaramji
Uike Patil, Applicant No.3/Tukaram S/o Shivramji
Uike, Applicant, No.4/Prabhakar S/o Domaji Uike
and Applicant No.5/Ganesh s/o Devidas Yedme,
for quashing of First Information Report in
connection with Crime No. 1447/2022 registered
with Police Station Gadge Nagar, Amravati for the
offence punishable under Sections 498-A read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, is hereby
quashed and set aside.
13. Pending application/s, if any, shall stand disposed of
accordingly.
(URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.)
S.D.Bhimte
Signed by: Mr.S.D.Bhimte
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 21/01/2026 18:29:55