13.APL1571.2023jud.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 1571 OF 2023 1. Ganpat S/o Bhimrao Gite Aged about 58 years, Occu. Retired, R/o. Rajanda, Tah. Barshitakli, District Akola (Husband of Resp.No.2) 2. Mahadeo Gulabrao Ghuge, aged about 68 years, Occ. Retired, R/o. Pangrabandi, Tah. Malegaon, District - Washim (cousin brother of Complaint's Husband) 3. Kashinath @ Kashiram Bhimrao Gite, Aged about 72 years, occ. Agriculturist (brother in law of complainant), 4. Sou. Mankarna Kashinath Gite, Aged about 65 years, Occ. Agriculturist, (sister -in law of Resp. No.2) 5. Mahadeo Kashinath Gite, Aged about 42 years, Occ. Agriculturist, (Nephew of Resp. No2) 6. Sou. Anita Mahadeo Gite, Aged about 41 years, Occ. Agriculturist, (sister in law of Resp. No 2) Nos. 3 to 6 are R/o. Rajanda, Tah. Barshitakli, Distt. Akola. 7. Sou. Ujjawala Gajanan Munde, Aged about 38 years, Occ. Household, (niece of Resp. No. 2) 8. Gajanan Namdeo Munde, Aged about 43 years, Occ. Labour, (husband of niece of Resp. No 2) Nos. 7 & 8 are R/o. Rokhadiya nagar, Shegaon, District -Buldana. ... Applicants PAGE 1 OF 8 2026:BHC-NAG:1216-DB 13.APL1571.2023jud.odt 9. Shivaji Kashiram Gite, Aged about 40 years, occ. Service, (Husband of Resp. No.2) (Nephew of husband of Resp. No.2) 10. Sou. Chandrakala Shivaji Gite, Aged about 38 years, Occ. Household, (Wife of nephew of Husband of Resp. No.2) Nos.9 & 10 are R/o. Gadchiroli, Tah. & Distt. Gadchiroli. 11. Sahebrao Jayaji Andhale, Aged about 72 years, Occ. Agriculturist, (unknown) 12. Sou. Damayanti Sahebrao Andhale, aged about 67 years, Occ. Agriculturist, (unknown) 13. Anil Sahebrao Andhale, Aged about 38 years, Occ. Agriculturist, (unknown) 14. Sou. Rukhmini Anil Andhale, Aged about 35 years, Occ. Agriculturist, (unknown) 15. Sangita Sahebrao Andhale, Aged about 47 years, Occ. Household, (unknown) Nos. 11 to 15 are R/o. Brahmanwada, Tah. Malegaon, District Washim 16. Sou. Rukhmini Manik Kentre, Aged about 55 years, occ. Household, R/o. Ramnagar, Ambejogai, Tah. Ambejogai, District - Beed (unknown) Versus 1. State of Maharashtra, Through its Police Station Officer, Police Station, Khadan, Akola, District Akola. PAGE 2 OF 8 13.APL1571.2023jud.odt 2] Sou. Shobha W/o Ganpat Gite, Age 50 years, Occu. Business, R/o. VHB Colony, Gorakshan Road, Akola, Tah. & Dist. Akola ... Non-applicants Ms. Manju M. Ghatode, Advocate for applicants. Mr. H.D. Dubey, APP for non-applicant/State. Ms. Bhavya C. Dhruv, Advocate (appointed) for non-applicant No.2. CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, JJ. DATE : 23.01.2026 ORAL JUDGMENT: Heard. (2) Admit. (3) Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties. (4) The present application is preferred by the applicants, who is the husband and the nearest relatives of the husband for quashing of the First Information Report and the consequent proceeding arising out of the same bearing RCC No.964/2016. (5) The FIR came to be lodged against the present applicants on the basis of the report lodged by the non-applicant No.2 alleging that her marriage with the present applicant No.1 was performed in the year 1992. After marriage, the applicant No.1 was PAGE 3 OF 8 13.APL1571.2023jud.odt recruited in Police Department at Nanded. From the said wedlock, she begotten one son and one daughter. It is alleged that in the year 2009, the applicant No.1 was transferred at Akola and since then, she was residing along with her husband and her children at Akola. It is alleged that from the year 2009, the applicant No.1 and his relatives have demanded Rs.5,00,000/- from the non-applicant No.2 for purchasing the four wheeler car and on that count alone, she was harassed by them physically as well as mentally. On the basis of the said report, police have registered the crime against the present applicants. After registration of the crime, the investigation started rotating. During investigation, various statements of the witnesses are recorded and after completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet came to be filed. (6) Heard learned counsel for the applicant, who submitted that after approximately 15 years of the long standing co- habitation with the present applicant No.1, the non-applicant No.2 has lodged a report. There was no previous complaints either filed in the police station or any disclosure to her relatives as far as the ill- treatment is concerned. Merely because, the dispute arose between the husband and wife, the FIR came to be lodged by her. She submitted PAGE 4 OF 8 13.APL1571.2023jud.odt that as far as the allegation as to the performance of the second marriage, that is also not substantiated by any other material. She submitted that all the applicants are implicated, merely because, they are the relatives of the applicant No.1, on the basis of the sweeping, omnibus and general allegations. In view of that, the application deserves to be allowed. (7) Per contra, learned APP strongly opposed the said contention, on the ground that, considering the nature of allegations that demand was made as well as she was ill-treated physically as well as mentally. In view of that, application deserves to be rejected. (8) Learned counsel for the non-applicant No.2 also reiterated the said contentions and submitted that in view of the fact that he has performed the second marriage. The offence under Section 498-A is made out. In view of that, the application deserves to be rejected. (9) On perusal of the recitals of the FIR it reveals that marriage between the applicant No.1 and non-applicant No.2 was performed in the year 1992. They are having two children, aged 17 years and 14 years respectively. From the recitals of the FIR and PAGE 5 OF 8 13.APL1571.2023jud.odt various statement of the witnesses, nowhere it reveals that prior to lodging of the report i.e. prior 06.04.2015, the non-applicant No.2 has made any complaint or any disclosure as to the ill-treatment to her at the hands of the present applicants. It is apparent that subsequently the dispute arose between the husband and wife and therefore, this FIR came to be lodged. (10) As far as the offence punishable under Sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code is concerned which attracts when a husband or his relatives subjects a woman to cruelty, which may result in imprisonment for a term extending upto three years and a fine. The explanation under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code defines “cruelty” for the purpose of 498A of the Indian Penal Code to mean any of the acts mentioned in Clause (a) or (b). The first limb of Clause (a) of the explanation of the Section 498A of the IPC states that “cruelty” means any willful conduct that is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide. The second limb of clause (a) of the explanation of Section 498A of the IPC states that “cruelty” means any willful conduct that is of such a nature as to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman. Further the Clause (b) of the explanation of Section 498A PAGE 6 OF 8 13.APL1571.2023jud.odt of the IPC states that “cruelty” would also include a harassment of the woman where such harassment is to coerce her or any person related 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. (11) In the light of the above requirement of Section 498A, if the allegations levelled against the present applicants are taken into consideration, as far as the husband is concerned, admittedly, till 2016, there was no single complaint made by the non- applicant No.2 as to the ill-treatment at his hands. It is apparent that as the dispute arose subsequently between both of them, this FIR came to be lodged. It is now a days tendency to implicate all the family members when the dispute arose between the husband and wife and in view of that, other applicants are also arrayed as an accused in the above said crime without attributing any specific act or specific role to them. Thus, considering the allegations levelled against the present applicants and the statement of the witnesses, prima facie no case is made out against the present applicants. In view of that, application deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass following order: PAGE 7 OF 8 13.APL1571.2023jud.odt O R D E R (i) Application is allowed. (ii) The FIR in connection with Crime No.239/2016 registered with Police Station Khadan, District – Akola, for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the consequent proceeding arising out of the same bearing RCC No.964/2016 is hereby quashed and set aside to the extent of the present applicants. (12) The criminal application is disposed of. (13) Fees of appointed learned counsel be paid as per rules. [URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.] Prity PAGE 8 OF 8