Full Judgment Text
2026:BHC-NAG:1266-DB
apl 1441-2024 J..doc 1/11
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.1441/2024
1. Nilesh S/o Mukundrao Wasukar,
Aged about 34 years, Occ.: -
Service R/o SRPF, Courters, Amravati.
2. Mukundrao S/o Hiraman Wasukar,
Aged about 64 years, Occ.: - Labour
3. Sau. Mahananda W/o Mukundrao Wasukar,
Aged about 50 years, Occ.: - Household
4. Nikesh S/o Mukundrao Wasukar,
Aged about 32 years, Occ.: - Service
Applicants No.2 to 4 R/o Mu. Lontek Post,
Kawatha Bahade, Lontek Kawatha,
Amravati-444602.
5. Vilas S/o Purushottam Navale,
Aged about 41 years, Occ.: Business,
6. Sau. Shalu W/o Vilas Navale,
Aged about major, Occ.: Household,
Applicant No. 5 & 6 R/o Ward No. 2,
Nimbhi, Amravati.
7. Mahadeo S/o Ashok Tayade,
Aged about 40 years, Occ.: Business,
8. Sau. Nalu W/o Mahadeo Tayade,
Aged about 37 years, Occ.: Household,
Applicant No. 7 & 8 R/o Ward No. 3,
Salora Bk, Shendola Bk, Amravati
... APPLICANTS
...VERSUS…
apl 1441-2024 J..doc 2/11
1. The State of Maharashtra
through Police Officer,
Police Station Ner Parsopant,
Dist. Yavatmal.
2 Sau. Arti W/o Nilesh Wasukar,
Aged about 30 years, Occ. Household,
R/o Laxmi Nagar, Ner Parsopant,
Dist. Yavatmal.
...NON-APPLICANTS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri A.P. Thakare, Advocate for applicant
Ms Deepa I. Charlewar, APP for non-applicant No.1/State
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : PRAVIN S. PATIL , J.
DATED : 21.01.2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
. Heard. By consent of the parties, this matter is taken
for final disposal.
2. The perusal of the record shows that non-applicant
No.2 is duly served long back, but no one has put appearance on
behalf of non-applicant No.2 in the matter.
3. The applicants herein are the husband, father-in-law,
mother-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law of the non-applicant
apl 1441-2024 J..doc 3/11
No.2. They came with a case before this Court that the First
Information Report and the complaint, which was lodged by non-
applicant No.2, even if, taken it at its face value and accepted in its
entirely, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a
case against the present applicants under Section 498-A of the
Indian Penal Code. Hence, they seek indulgence of this Court in the
matter.
4. It is the case of the prosecution in the present matter is
that non-applicant No.2 has performed the marriage with applicant
No.1 on 27.02.2021. The applicant No.1 is in service at SRPF,
Nagpur, as a Constable. Out of the said wedlock, they were blessed
with a girl child on 27.02.2024. The main allegations of the non-
applicant No.2 is that on 12.03.2024, when she went to the quarter
at Amravati, at that time, she saw a marriage certificate of her
husband with one Kumud Falke. Accordingly, she got knowledge of
marriage of the applicant No.1 during the subsistence of her
marriage with the applicant No.1. The other allegations which are
made in the complaint about the mental and physical harassment at
the instance of applicant and the instigation by the applicant Nos.2
apl 1441-2024 J..doc 4/11
to 8. On the basis of this complaint, the offence came to be
registered against the present applicants under Sections 506, 504,
498A of the Indian Penal Code.
5. The submission of the present applicants is that the
allegations made in the complaint by the non-applicant No.2 are of
general, vague and omnibus in nature. There is no specific date,
time and manner in which the harassment is caused is not described
in the complaint. Therefore, prima facie, the offence under Section
498-A is not made out in the matter.
6. In respect of the allegations of performing the marriage
by applicant with one Sou Kumud Falke, it is the submission of the
present applicant that if this allegation is accepted, then at the
most, offence under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code can be
registered against the present applicant. However, the said offence
being a non-cognizable offence, the applicant has intentionally
lodged this complaint only to implicate the applicant and his family
members in the criminal offence and to prosecute them under this
offence. As such, the complaint lodged by them is with an oblique
apl 1441-2024 J..doc 5/11
motive and hence, indulgence of this Court is necessary in the
matter.
7. Learned APP has strongly opposed the present
application. According to learned APP, there are specific allegations
that under the influence of intoxication, applicants used to give ill-
treatment to the non-applicant No.2 mentally as well as physically.
So also, specific allegations are made against the applicant Nos.2 to
8 that they used to instigate the non-applicant No.1 against her. In
view of this specific allegations, the offence is made out against the
applicants in the matter.
8. In the light of submissions made by the learned
Counsel for both sides before this Court, it would be relevant to
consider Section 498-A of IPC. The bare perusal of this provision
shows that vide its Explanation cruelty means any willful conduct
which is of such a nature as is likely to drive a woman to commit
suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health
(whether mental or physical) of a woman. As per Explanation (b)
harassment is done with a view to meet any unlawful demand for
any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her
apl 1441-2024 J..doc 6/11
or any person related to her to meet such demand. As such, while
deciding these allegations, this Court has to first look into whether
the cruelty which is allegedly falls in the explanation provided
under Section 498-A of IPC.
9. It is also pertinent to note that the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India and this Court has experienced that there is a
tendency of implicating the husband and his relatives in the
criminal offence on vague and omnibus allegations. Therefore, this
Court is required to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing
with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into
consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases.
10. To attract the offence, it is necessary that the
allegations levelled against the Applicant should be concrete and
precise. If it is found that the allegations are made without
providing any specific details or describing any particular instance
of harassment, in such cases, where Informant did not mention
date, time and place or manner in which the alleged harassment is
occurred, the Court should be slow while holding that offence is
apl 1441-2024 J..doc 7/11
made out against the applicants.
11. It is also held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
catena of cases that mere trivial irritations, quarrels between
spouses which happen in day- to-day married life not to be
considered as cruelty. The foundation of a sound marriage is
tolerance, adjustment and respecting each other. Therefore, petty
quibbles, trifling differences are general and should not be
exaggerated and blown out of proportion to destroy the marriage.
12. In support of this submission, it will be relevant to rely
upon the Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the
cases of - (i) Dara Lakshmi Narayana & Others V/s State of
Telangana & Another, 2025(3) SCC 735; (ii) Preeti Gupta and
Another V/s State of Jharkhand and Another, (2010) 7 Supreme
Court Cases 667; and (iii) Achin Gupta V/s State of Haryana and
Another, AIR 2024 SC 2548.
13. In light of above said legal position, I have perused the
entire record. In addition to this First Information Report, the
apl 1441-2024 J..doc 8/11
applicant has pointed out that one of the complaint lodged by non-
applicant No.2 to the concerned office of SRPF dated 12.03.2024.
From perusal of this complaint, it is seen that the complainant was
knowing the fact that applicant No.1 had performed the marriage
with one Kumud Falke, since March 2024, but with mutual
understanding, their marital relations were continued. At that
juncture, except complaint to employer of applicant No.1, no
criminal action was initiated by non-applicant No.2.
14. It is also pointed out that on the basis of the complaint
lodged by non-applicant No.2, a preliminary inquiry was made in
the matter and she was specifically asked as to whether the
applicant husband was/is giving her ill-treatment or what. The non-
applicant No.2 answered that she is treating properly by applicant
No.1. As such, from this document, which was very much known
and available with the non-applicant No.2 at the time of lodging
complaint was not disclosed to the police machinery.
15. It is a well-settled position of law as stated above that
to attract the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code,
there should be specific allegation of cruelty and because of such
apl 1441-2024 J..doc 9/11
cruelty should be of such a nature that the complainant was likely
to drive the human to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or
danger to her life. So also, the harassment should be with a certain
objective, but perusal of the entire report and the documents placed
on record nowhere satisfy the ingredient of Section 498A of the
Indian Penal Code in the matter.
16. In view of this, it will be relevant to refer the judgment
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dara Laxshmi
Narayana and ors. Vs. State of Telangana and ors., reported in
2025 (3) 735, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed in
paragraph No. 30 as under:
“30. The inclusion of Section 498A of the Indian Penal
Code by way of an amendment was intended to curb
cruelty inflicted on a woman by her husband and his
family, ensuring swift intervention by the State.
However, in recent years, as there have been a notable
rise in matrimonial disputes across the country,
accompanied by growing discord and tension within the
institution of marriage, consequently, there has been a
growing tendency to misuse provisions like Section 498A
of the Indian Penal Code as a tool for unleashing
personal vendetta against the husband and his family by
a wife. Making vague and generalised allegations during
matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinized, will lead to the
misuse of legal processes and an encouragement for use
apl 1441-2024 J..doc 10/11
of arm twisting tactics by a wife and/or her family.
Sometimes, recourse is taken to invoke Section 498A of
the Indian Penal Code against the husband and his
family in order to seek compliance with the
unreasonable demands of a wife. Consequently, this
Court has, time and again, cautioned against prosecuting
the husband and his family in the absence of a clear
prima facie case against them.”
17. In light of the factual as well as the legal position, I am
satisfied that the offence under Sections 498A, 504 and 506 of the
Indian Penal Code is not made out against the present applicants.
All the allegations leveled against the applicants are vague and
omnibus in nature. Therefore, it is a fit case of indulgence in this
matter. Continuing the criminal proceedings against the applicants
would nothing but abuse of process of law. Therefore, I proceed to
pass the following order:
ORDER
i) The application is allowed.
ii) The proceedings bearing First Information Report
No.0403/2024 dated 11.06.2024 registered with Police Station Ner
Parsopant, District Yavatmal, for the offences punishable under
Section 498-A, 504 and 503 of the Indian Penal Code is hereby
quashed and set aside against the present applicants.
apl 1441-2024 J..doc 11/11
18. The application stands disposed of. No order as to the
costs.
(PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.)
R.S. Sahare
Signed by: Mrs. Ranjana Sahare
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 27/01/2026 19:44:10
apl 1441-2024 J..doc 1/11
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.1441/2024
1. Nilesh S/o Mukundrao Wasukar,
Aged about 34 years, Occ.: -
Service R/o SRPF, Courters, Amravati.
2. Mukundrao S/o Hiraman Wasukar,
Aged about 64 years, Occ.: - Labour
3. Sau. Mahananda W/o Mukundrao Wasukar,
Aged about 50 years, Occ.: - Household
4. Nikesh S/o Mukundrao Wasukar,
Aged about 32 years, Occ.: - Service
Applicants No.2 to 4 R/o Mu. Lontek Post,
Kawatha Bahade, Lontek Kawatha,
Amravati-444602.
5. Vilas S/o Purushottam Navale,
Aged about 41 years, Occ.: Business,
6. Sau. Shalu W/o Vilas Navale,
Aged about major, Occ.: Household,
Applicant No. 5 & 6 R/o Ward No. 2,
Nimbhi, Amravati.
7. Mahadeo S/o Ashok Tayade,
Aged about 40 years, Occ.: Business,
8. Sau. Nalu W/o Mahadeo Tayade,
Aged about 37 years, Occ.: Household,
Applicant No. 7 & 8 R/o Ward No. 3,
Salora Bk, Shendola Bk, Amravati
... APPLICANTS
...VERSUS…
apl 1441-2024 J..doc 2/11
1. The State of Maharashtra
through Police Officer,
Police Station Ner Parsopant,
Dist. Yavatmal.
2 Sau. Arti W/o Nilesh Wasukar,
Aged about 30 years, Occ. Household,
R/o Laxmi Nagar, Ner Parsopant,
Dist. Yavatmal.
...NON-APPLICANTS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri A.P. Thakare, Advocate for applicant
Ms Deepa I. Charlewar, APP for non-applicant No.1/State
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : PRAVIN S. PATIL , J.
DATED : 21.01.2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
. Heard. By consent of the parties, this matter is taken
for final disposal.
2. The perusal of the record shows that non-applicant
No.2 is duly served long back, but no one has put appearance on
behalf of non-applicant No.2 in the matter.
3. The applicants herein are the husband, father-in-law,
mother-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law of the non-applicant
apl 1441-2024 J..doc 3/11
No.2. They came with a case before this Court that the First
Information Report and the complaint, which was lodged by non-
applicant No.2, even if, taken it at its face value and accepted in its
entirely, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a
case against the present applicants under Section 498-A of the
Indian Penal Code. Hence, they seek indulgence of this Court in the
matter.
4. It is the case of the prosecution in the present matter is
that non-applicant No.2 has performed the marriage with applicant
No.1 on 27.02.2021. The applicant No.1 is in service at SRPF,
Nagpur, as a Constable. Out of the said wedlock, they were blessed
with a girl child on 27.02.2024. The main allegations of the non-
applicant No.2 is that on 12.03.2024, when she went to the quarter
at Amravati, at that time, she saw a marriage certificate of her
husband with one Kumud Falke. Accordingly, she got knowledge of
marriage of the applicant No.1 during the subsistence of her
marriage with the applicant No.1. The other allegations which are
made in the complaint about the mental and physical harassment at
the instance of applicant and the instigation by the applicant Nos.2
apl 1441-2024 J..doc 4/11
to 8. On the basis of this complaint, the offence came to be
registered against the present applicants under Sections 506, 504,
498A of the Indian Penal Code.
5. The submission of the present applicants is that the
allegations made in the complaint by the non-applicant No.2 are of
general, vague and omnibus in nature. There is no specific date,
time and manner in which the harassment is caused is not described
in the complaint. Therefore, prima facie, the offence under Section
498-A is not made out in the matter.
6. In respect of the allegations of performing the marriage
by applicant with one Sou Kumud Falke, it is the submission of the
present applicant that if this allegation is accepted, then at the
most, offence under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code can be
registered against the present applicant. However, the said offence
being a non-cognizable offence, the applicant has intentionally
lodged this complaint only to implicate the applicant and his family
members in the criminal offence and to prosecute them under this
offence. As such, the complaint lodged by them is with an oblique
apl 1441-2024 J..doc 5/11
motive and hence, indulgence of this Court is necessary in the
matter.
7. Learned APP has strongly opposed the present
application. According to learned APP, there are specific allegations
that under the influence of intoxication, applicants used to give ill-
treatment to the non-applicant No.2 mentally as well as physically.
So also, specific allegations are made against the applicant Nos.2 to
8 that they used to instigate the non-applicant No.1 against her. In
view of this specific allegations, the offence is made out against the
applicants in the matter.
8. In the light of submissions made by the learned
Counsel for both sides before this Court, it would be relevant to
consider Section 498-A of IPC. The bare perusal of this provision
shows that vide its Explanation cruelty means any willful conduct
which is of such a nature as is likely to drive a woman to commit
suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health
(whether mental or physical) of a woman. As per Explanation (b)
harassment is done with a view to meet any unlawful demand for
any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her
apl 1441-2024 J..doc 6/11
or any person related to her to meet such demand. As such, while
deciding these allegations, this Court has to first look into whether
the cruelty which is allegedly falls in the explanation provided
under Section 498-A of IPC.
9. It is also pertinent to note that the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India and this Court has experienced that there is a
tendency of implicating the husband and his relatives in the
criminal offence on vague and omnibus allegations. Therefore, this
Court is required to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing
with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into
consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases.
10. To attract the offence, it is necessary that the
allegations levelled against the Applicant should be concrete and
precise. If it is found that the allegations are made without
providing any specific details or describing any particular instance
of harassment, in such cases, where Informant did not mention
date, time and place or manner in which the alleged harassment is
occurred, the Court should be slow while holding that offence is
apl 1441-2024 J..doc 7/11
made out against the applicants.
11. It is also held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
catena of cases that mere trivial irritations, quarrels between
spouses which happen in day- to-day married life not to be
considered as cruelty. The foundation of a sound marriage is
tolerance, adjustment and respecting each other. Therefore, petty
quibbles, trifling differences are general and should not be
exaggerated and blown out of proportion to destroy the marriage.
12. In support of this submission, it will be relevant to rely
upon the Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the
cases of - (i) Dara Lakshmi Narayana & Others V/s State of
Telangana & Another, 2025(3) SCC 735; (ii) Preeti Gupta and
Another V/s State of Jharkhand and Another, (2010) 7 Supreme
Court Cases 667; and (iii) Achin Gupta V/s State of Haryana and
Another, AIR 2024 SC 2548.
13. In light of above said legal position, I have perused the
entire record. In addition to this First Information Report, the
apl 1441-2024 J..doc 8/11
applicant has pointed out that one of the complaint lodged by non-
applicant No.2 to the concerned office of SRPF dated 12.03.2024.
From perusal of this complaint, it is seen that the complainant was
knowing the fact that applicant No.1 had performed the marriage
with one Kumud Falke, since March 2024, but with mutual
understanding, their marital relations were continued. At that
juncture, except complaint to employer of applicant No.1, no
criminal action was initiated by non-applicant No.2.
14. It is also pointed out that on the basis of the complaint
lodged by non-applicant No.2, a preliminary inquiry was made in
the matter and she was specifically asked as to whether the
applicant husband was/is giving her ill-treatment or what. The non-
applicant No.2 answered that she is treating properly by applicant
No.1. As such, from this document, which was very much known
and available with the non-applicant No.2 at the time of lodging
complaint was not disclosed to the police machinery.
15. It is a well-settled position of law as stated above that
to attract the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code,
there should be specific allegation of cruelty and because of such
apl 1441-2024 J..doc 9/11
cruelty should be of such a nature that the complainant was likely
to drive the human to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or
danger to her life. So also, the harassment should be with a certain
objective, but perusal of the entire report and the documents placed
on record nowhere satisfy the ingredient of Section 498A of the
Indian Penal Code in the matter.
16. In view of this, it will be relevant to refer the judgment
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dara Laxshmi
Narayana and ors. Vs. State of Telangana and ors., reported in
2025 (3) 735, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed in
paragraph No. 30 as under:
“30. The inclusion of Section 498A of the Indian Penal
Code by way of an amendment was intended to curb
cruelty inflicted on a woman by her husband and his
family, ensuring swift intervention by the State.
However, in recent years, as there have been a notable
rise in matrimonial disputes across the country,
accompanied by growing discord and tension within the
institution of marriage, consequently, there has been a
growing tendency to misuse provisions like Section 498A
of the Indian Penal Code as a tool for unleashing
personal vendetta against the husband and his family by
a wife. Making vague and generalised allegations during
matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinized, will lead to the
misuse of legal processes and an encouragement for use
apl 1441-2024 J..doc 10/11
of arm twisting tactics by a wife and/or her family.
Sometimes, recourse is taken to invoke Section 498A of
the Indian Penal Code against the husband and his
family in order to seek compliance with the
unreasonable demands of a wife. Consequently, this
Court has, time and again, cautioned against prosecuting
the husband and his family in the absence of a clear
prima facie case against them.”
17. In light of the factual as well as the legal position, I am
satisfied that the offence under Sections 498A, 504 and 506 of the
Indian Penal Code is not made out against the present applicants.
All the allegations leveled against the applicants are vague and
omnibus in nature. Therefore, it is a fit case of indulgence in this
matter. Continuing the criminal proceedings against the applicants
would nothing but abuse of process of law. Therefore, I proceed to
pass the following order:
ORDER
i) The application is allowed.
ii) The proceedings bearing First Information Report
No.0403/2024 dated 11.06.2024 registered with Police Station Ner
Parsopant, District Yavatmal, for the offences punishable under
Section 498-A, 504 and 503 of the Indian Penal Code is hereby
quashed and set aside against the present applicants.
apl 1441-2024 J..doc 11/11
18. The application stands disposed of. No order as to the
costs.
(PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.)
R.S. Sahare
Signed by: Mrs. Ranjana Sahare
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 27/01/2026 19:44:10