101apl376.2022.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 376 OF 2022 APPLICANTS :- 1) Shaikh Asif Shaik Shabbir, Age about 38 years, Occu: Advocate. 2) Shaikh Shabbir Shaik Ajim Aged about 72 years, Occu: Nil. 3) Sau. Taimuna Bi Shaik Shabbir, Aged about 61 years, Occu: Household. 4) Shaikh Arif Shaik Shabbir, Aged about 30 years, Occu: Business. 5) Shaikh Rajik Shaik Shabbir, Aged about 32 years, Occu: Business. Applicant Nos. 1 to 5 are R/at Behind Nawaz Medical, Taj Nagar, Amravati, Tq. and Dist. Amravati. 6) Sau. Shamshad bi Ajmat Khan Aged about 42 years, Occu: Household, R/at Muzaffarpura, Lalkhadi Road, Amravati, Tah. and District Amravati. ..VERSUS.. NON- APPLICANTS :- 1) State of Maharashtra, through its P.S.O., P.S. Daryapur, District Amravati. 2) Ujma Parvin Shaikh Asif @ Ujma Naaj W/o Shaikh Asif, Age 31 years, Occu: Household, R/o c/o Sk. Waris Sk. Hasan, Near Madarsa, Kasadpura, Daryapur, Tah. Daryapur, District Amravati. rkn 2026:BHC-NAG:1816-DB 101apl376.2022.odt 2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mr. S.K. Bhattacharya, counsel h/f Mr. N.S. Warulkar, counsel for Applicants Mr. M.J.Khan, APP for non-applicant/State. Mr Vikky S. Gouhale, counsel h/f Mr. Rahul Jaywantrao Shinde, counsel for non- applicant No.2. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : PRAVIN S. PATIL, J. DATE : 2 8 /01/2026 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of learned counsel Mr. S.K.Bhattacharya, counsel holding for Mr. N.S. Warulkar, learned counsel for applicants, Mr. M.J.Khan, learned APP for non-applicant/State and Mr. Vikky S. Gouhale, counsel holding for Mr. Rahul Jaywantrao Shinde, learned counsel for the non-applicant No.2, the application is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission. 2. The applicants herein are the husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-laws of the non-applicant No.2. The applicants seeks quashment of the charge-sheet bearing No. 05/2022 dated 03/02/2022 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A, 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 3. At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the applicants seeks permission to withdraw the present application against the applicant No.1-husband. Permission is granted. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed as withdrawn insofar as applicant No.1 is concerned. 4. The story of the prosecution in the present case is that, after marriage of non-applicant No.2 which was solemnized on rkn 101apl376.2022.odt 3 23/02/2020, thereafter her husband started harassment to her and make a demand of four wheeler. As the non-applicant No.2 refused to provide the said vehicle as well as an amount of Rs. 7,00,000/-, she was physically harassed by him. In respect of applicant Nos.2 to 5, the only allegations against them is that they instigate the husband and used to taunt her on the ground that she could not conceive pregnancy. As such, on the basis of this, complaint lodged by non-applicant No.2, the offence came to be registered against the present applicants under Section 498-A and 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 5. The submission of the present applicants is that even if the allegations which are levelled against them are accepted at its face value in its entirety, no offence under Section 498-A of the IPC is made out against them. Hence, it is contended that the continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law and therefore, sought indulgence of this Court in the matter. 6. In the light of the 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 -(a) the cruelty means any wilfil 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 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 or not. rkn 101apl376.2022.odt 4 7. 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 omnibous allegations. Therefore, this Court is required to be extremely careful and cautions in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. 8. 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 made out against the applicants. 9. It is also held by 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. 10. In the light of above said legal position, I have gone through the statements of the applicants and the other relatives, which was recorded by the Investigating Officer. It is seen from the record that there are no specific or precise allegations against the present applicants. The allegations which are levelled against the present applicants that of taunting to her and secondly instigating her husband against non-applicant No.2. Except these allegations, there is no rkn 101apl376.2022.odt 5 material on record. As such, on basis of these allegation, no offence is made out, as these allegation do not satisfy the cruelty as explained in clauses (a) and (b) of Section 498-A of the IPC. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that no offence is made out against the present applicant Nos 2 to 6 in the present matter. 11. In the facts and circumstances and the findings recorded above, I am of the opinion that continuation of the criminal proceedings against applicant Nos. 2 to 6 would nothing but abuse of process of law therefore, it will not be proper to keep continue of the criminal proceedings against them. Hence, I proceed to pass the following order. ORDER a] The criminal application is partly allowed. b] The charge-sheet No. 05/2022 dated 03/02/2022 arising out of crime No. 512/2021 registered with police station Daryapur, District Amravati, for the offence punishable under Section 498A , 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, is hereby quashed and set aside against the applicant Nos. 2 to 6. c] It is made clear that prosecution will continue against the present applicant No.1. 12. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. (PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.) rkn