1 33-J-APL-1280-2023.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 1280 OF 2023 APPLICANTS : 1. Manohar Ramaji Khadatkar, Aged about : 65 years, Occupation : Retired, R/o Flat No.922, Pioneer Orchid Chinchbhuvan, Wardha Road, Nagpur. 2. Lata W/o Manohar Khadatkar, Aged about 60 years, Occupation : Household, R/o Flat No.922, Pioneer Orchid Chinchbhuvan, Wardha Road, Nagpur. 3. Eachha W/o Gurudatta More, Aged about 39 years, Occupation : Service, R/o. Ajanta Society, Goregaon West, Mumbai. 4. Sonu W/o Sandesh Jeevane, Aged about 36 years, Occupation : Service, R/o Goregaon Bhima, Pune-16. 5. Mahesh Uddhavrao Khadatkar, Aged about 51 years, Occupation : Service, R/o Vaishnavi Apartment, Somalwada, Nagpur. V E R S U S RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Maharashtra Through Police Station Officer, Police Station Beltarodi, Nagpur, District – Nagpur. 2026:BHC-NAG:3023-DB 2 33-J-APL-1280-2023.doc 2. Ankita W/o Sumitkumar Khadatkar, Aged about 34 years, Occupation :Nil, R/o House No.3, Jaibhim Nagar, Gwari Ghat Road, Jabalpur, District – Jabalpur (M.P.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri R. M. Patwardhan, Advocate for applicants. Shri N. B. Jawade, Additional Public Prosecutor for non-applicant No.1. Ms. Pinki S. Kosare, Advocate for non-applicant No.2. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM: URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J. DATED : 17/02/2026. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. Admit. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. By this application, the applicants are seeking quashing of the FIR in connection with Crime No.300/2023 registered under Sections 323, 354, 377, 498-A r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and the consequent proceeding arising out of the same bearing RCC No.32/2024. 3. A crime is registered on the basis of report lodged by the non-applicant No.2 on an allegation that on 15/05/2022, her marriage was performed with the son of the present applicant Nos.1 and 2 and she started residing in matrimonial house at 3 33-J-APL-1280-2023.doc Nagpur along with all accused persons. After marriage, all accused persons including the present applicants were harassing and ill- treating her for the demand of Rs.20,00,000/- for purchasing the flat. It is further alleged that the applicants have also demanded Rs.80,000/- for transportation for the marriage cost as well as they have started harassing her and ill-treating her physically and mentally. On the basis of the said report, police have registered a crime against the present applicants. 4. Heard learned counsel for the applicants who submitted that on the basis of general, omnibus and vague allegations, applicants who are the nearest relatives of the husband are implicated in the alleged offence. He submitted that there are no specific instances narrated as far as the present applicants are concerned and ill-treatment at their hands. 5. He has submitted that entire FIR depicts that the general, omnibus and vague allegations are made against the present applicants regarding ill-treatment. He submitted that offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is also not made out as Sections 3 and 4 of the said Act would be applicable, if there is demand of the dowry. He submitted that in 4 33-J-APL-1280-2023.doc view of the definition given under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the act of the present applicants nowhere reveals that there was demand at the time of the marriage and it was a demand towards dowry. Therefore, the offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is not made out. He further submitted that bare perusal of the FIR and material placed on record reveals that no specific instances are narrated as far as the role of the present applicants are concerned and therefore, the application deserves to be allowed. 6. Per contra, learned APP and learned counsel for the complainant strongly opposed the said contention and submitted that due to the harassment at the hands of the present applicants, the non-applicant No.2 constrained to leave matrimonial house and she is staying at her parents house. They have invited my attention towards the entire investigation papers, especially the statement of the victim and submitted that victim was also subjected for the unnatural sexual assault by her husband. For all above grounds, application deserves to be rejected. 7. On hearing both the sides and on perusal of the entire investigation papers, it reveals that as far as husband is concerned 5 33-J-APL-1280-2023.doc against whom the specific allegations are levelled as to the unnatural sexual assault as well as demand of money. The present applicants who are the nearest relatives of the husband of the informant against whom no specific instances are narrated by non- applicant No.2 in the FIR i.e. general, omnibus and vague allegations that all the applicants were harassing her for the demand of dowry and were instigating her husband and her husband was ill-treating her. It is now settled position that mere reference of the names of the relatives without assigning any specific role or specific instance is not sufficient to attract the offence punishable under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code. Section 498 of the IPC deals with the husband or relative of husband of woman subjecting her to cruelty. The explanation to this section defines cruelty means - (a) any wilful 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 the woman or (b) harassment of the woman were harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person relating 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. 8. The careful scrutiny of the charge sheet shows that the statements of the parents and the statements of the other witnesses are omnibus or stereotype and general allegations are 6 33-J-APL-1280-2023.doc levelled in the said statements. At this stage, the observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dara Lakshmi Narayana vs. State of Telangana, reported in MANU/SC/1309/2024, is relevant wherein it is observed by the Apex Court 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. 9. In the light of the above observations, and if the facts of the present case are taken into consideration, it is apparent that the present applicants are implicated in the alleged offence merely on the basis of the fact that they are the relatives of non-applicant No.2 on the basis of general, omnibus and vague allegations. Thus, prima facie case is not made out against them and therefore, application deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass following order :- ORDER i] The application is allowed. ii] The FIR in connection with Crime No.300/2023 registered under Sections 323, 354, 377, 498-A r/w 7 33-J-APL-1280-2023.doc Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and the consequent proceeding arising out of the same bearing RCC No.32/2024 pending in the Court of 6th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur is hereby quashed and set aside to the extent of present applicants. 10. The application is disposed of. [JUDGE] Choulwar