24.apl.979.2019.Judgment.odt (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.979 OF 2019 1. Suresh S/o Ganpatrao Maske, Age - 72 years, Occupation – Retired, 2. Sau. Durga W/o Suresh Maske, Age-52 years, Occupation - Household, 1 & 2 R/o. Chandan Nagar, Medical Chowk, P.T.S. Quarter No.245, Nagpur. 3. Ku. Manisha D/o Suresh Maske, Age-41 years, Occupation – Household, 4. Ku Ashwini D/o Suresh Maske, Age-29 years, Occupation - Education, 1 To 4 R/o. Chandan Nagar, Medical Chowk, P.T.S. Quarter No.245, Nagpur. 5. Kunal S/o Rajendra Maske, Age-23 years, Occupation - Education, 6. Rajendra S/o Ganpatrao Maske, Age-51 years, Occupation - Retired, 5 & 6 R/o. Plot No.55, Dhanvantari Nagar, Umarkhed Road, Nagpur. 7. Sau Renuka W/o Sandeep Fadtade, Age-41 years, Occupation - Household, R/o. Vishvakarma Nagar, Nagpur. .... APPLICANTS // VERSUS // 1. State of Maharashtra Through Police Station Old City, District – Akola. 2. Sau. Purva @ Sangita W/o Chandrashekhar Maske, Aged-38 years, Occupation - Lawyer. R/o C/o.Mohanrao Kondane, in front of Shri. Shivaji School, 2026:BHC-NAG:2023-DB 24.apl.979.2019.Judgment.odt (2) Dasera Nagar, Harihar Peth, Old City, Akola. ....NON-APPLICANTS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. Sameer Purwar, Advocate along with Mr. N. R. Tekade, Advocate for applicants. Mr. A. M. Kadukar, APP for non-applicant No.1/State. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J. DATED : 28/01/2026 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. 4. Present application is preferred by the applicants, who are the in-laws and nearest relatives of the husband of the non-applicant No.2. 5. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, who submitted that the present applicants who are the nearest relatives of the husband of the non-applicant No.2 are arraigned as an accused in connection with Crime No.150/2017 on the basis of general and omnibus allegations. He submitted that the recitals of the FIR shows that the marriage between the son of the applicant Nos.1 and 2 and the non-applicant No.2 was performed on 16.11.2016. After marriage, she resumed the cohabitation at the house of the present applicants. As per the 24.apl.979.2019.Judgment.odt (3) allegations, the applicants have ill-treated her by demanding unlawful demands as well as physically and mentally torture her. He submitted that the entire allegations are levelled against the husband. As far as the present applicants are concerned, though they are residing with the non-applicant No.2, but there are no specific allegations levelled against them. Other applicants are the cousin brothers and sisters of the husband of the non-applicant No.2. There is no occasion for them to visit the house of the non-applicant No.2 and ill-treat her. He submitted that, considering the nature of the allegations and now the settled law, there has to be some overt act on the part of the present applicants, mere reference to the names of the family members is not sufficient and their active involvement should be there. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of SLP (Crl.) No.7597/2025 decided on 16.12.2025, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court by referring the earlier decisions quashed the proceeding. 6. Per contra, learned APP strongly opposed the said contention and submitted that considering there is a specific allegation against the present applicants, the application deserves to be rejected. 24.apl.979.2019.Judgment.odt (4) 7. On hearing both sides and on perusal of the recitals of the FIR and the investigation papers, it reveals that the applicant Nos.1 and 2, who are the in-laws and the other applicants are the distinct relatives of the husband of the non-applicant No.2, implicated in the alleged offence on the basis of general, omnibus and vague allegations. Considering the observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dara Lakshmi Narayana vs. State of Telangana, (2025) 3 SCC 735, wherein it is observed that a mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement should be nipped in the bud. It is further observed that it is a well-recognised fact, borne out of judicial experience, that there is often a tendency to implicate all the members of the husband’s family when domestic disputes arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such generalised and sweeping allegations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularised allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. 8. In view of that, and considering the nature of the allegations, which are general and vague, the application deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass following order: 24.apl.979.2019.Judgment.odt (5) ORDER (i) The application is allowed. (ii) The FIR in connection with Crime No.150/2017 registered with Police Station Old City, District Akola for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 506, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and consequent proceeding arising out of the same bearing RCC 579/2017, is hereby quashed and set aside to the extent of the present applicants. The application is disposed of. (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J) Sarkate.