appln-3008-2025.odt (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3008 OF 2025 1. Nilesh Sudhakarrao Pawar Age: 35 Years, Occupation: Service, (HUSBAND) 2. Sudhakar Janrao Pawar Age: 60 Years, Occupation: Agriculturist, (FATHER IN LAW) 3. Shilabai Sudhakar Pawar Age: 55 Years, Occupation: Household, (MOTHER IN LAW) 4. Mangesh Sudhakar Pawar Age: 37 Years, Occupation: Agriculturist, (BROTHER IN LAW) 5. Pranita Mangesh Pawar Age: 31 Years, Occupation: Household, (SISTER IN LAW) 1 to 5 R/o : At Post Dongakini Taluka Malegaon, District Washim. ..Applicants VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through Police Inspector, Police Station – Mantha, District Jalna. 2. Madhuri Nilesh Pawar, Age: 28 years, Occu: Household, R/o. C/o. Sureshrao Mahadevrao More, Devthana (Usvat), Taluka Mantha, District Jalna. ..Respondents … Mr. G.D. Jain, Advocate for Applicants. Mr. S.K. Shirse, APP for Respondent/State. Ms. Pooja Apache, Advocate for Respondent No.2 (Appointed). ... CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. DATED : JUNE 12, 2026 FINAL ORDER :- 1. The applicants seek quashment of FIR No.313 of 2025 dated 01.06.2025 registered with Police Station Mantha, District 2026:BHC-AUG:24116-DB appln-3008-2025.odt (2) Jalna for offences punishable under Sections 85 and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. On 14.08.2025, at first hearing of application, after disinclination shown by this Court to grant any relief to applicant no.1, application came to be dismissed as withdrawn as against applicant no.1 and notices were issued only for reliefs claimed on behalf of applicant nos.2 to 5. 3. The investigation was set in motion on the basis of information given by respondent no.2 alleging that on 28.06.2016, she married with applicant no.1. Thereafter, she resided at her matrimonial home. The couple is blessed with a son and daughter. It is alleged that after marriage, she was treated well for 2-3 months. Thereafter ill-treatment started finding faults with her conduct. The second part of allegation is against conduct of husband. The omnibus allegation is employed against applicants that they were supporting illegal demand of her husband and made to starve her in pursuance to such demand. The investigation progressed on registration of offence and finally, charge sheet came to be filed. 4. The careful reading of FIR shows that grievance of respondent no.2 is against her husband. Although, allegations of demand and cruelty are commonly made against all accused persons, there are no particulars of their overt acts whereby ingredients of appln-3008-2025.odt (3) offence under Section 85 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 can be made out. 5. In light of aforesaid backdrop, reference can be given to observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Preeti Gupta and Another Vs. State of Jharkhand and Another reported in (2010) 7 SCC 667, particularly paragraph nos.30, 32 and 34, which read thus : “30. It is a matter of common knowledge that unfortunately matrimonial litigation is rapidly increasing in our country. All the courts in our country including this Court are flooded with matrimonial cases. This clearly demonstrates discontent and unrest in the family life of a large number of people of the society. 32. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under section 498-A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment are also a matter of serious concern. 34. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualized by the complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations.” 6. Reference can also be given to observations of another judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Arti Mehta and Others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 933, particularly paragraph no.43, which reads thus : “43. However, while safeguarding the rights and dignity of victims of domestic violence remains of paramount importance, courts are simultaneously required to ensure appln-3008-2025.odt (4) that the rigours of criminal law are not indiscriminately extended to every member of the family without a clear factual foundation. In prosecutions arising out of matrimonial disputes, the allegations against each accused must be specific, distinct and supported by prima facie material indicating active involvement in the alleged acts of cruelty, harassment or unlawful demand of dowry. Mere allegations that family members “supported” the husband, failed to intervene, or advised the complainant to adjust in the matrimonial relationship, without anything further, would not ipso facto attract criminal liability. There may indeed be situations where certain relatives remain passive spectators or fail to come to the aid of the complainant; however, such conduct, though morally questionable, cannot automatically be elevated to the status of criminal culpability unless the surrounding circumstances clearly disclose their active complicity or participation in the alleged offences.” 7. Reference can also be given to observations of another judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Dara Lakshmi Narayana and Others Vs. State of Telangana and Another reported in 2025 3 SCC 735, particularly paragraph nos.27 and 30, which reads thus : “27. 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 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 accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularised allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. Courts must exercise caution in such cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions and the legal process and avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent family members.” 30. The inclusion of Section 498A of the IPC 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 appln-3008-2025.odt (5) the institution of marriage, consequently, there has been a growing tendency to misuse provisions like Section 498A of the IPC 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 of arm twisting tactics by a wife and/or her family. Sometimes, recourse is taken to invoke Section 498A of the IPC 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.” 8. In light of aforesaid exposition of law, if contents of charge sheet are perused, it can be observed that no offence can be made out against applicant nos.2 to 5. As rightly pointed out by Mr. Jain. On 10.09.2024, applicant no.1 filed Marriage Petition No.236 of 2024 against respondent no.2 seeking decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(a) of Hindu Marriage Act. Present FIR has been lodged on 01.06.2025 which appears to be reaction of husband’s petition. In this backdrop, this Court finds that no case can be made out against applicant nos.2 to 5 for continuation of their prosecution on the basis of contents of FIR or material in charge sheet. In result, further prosecution as against applicant nos.2 to 5 would be abuse of process of law. Hence, case is made out to exercise inherent powers of this Court. Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (B) to the extent of applicant nos.2 to 5. 9. The prosecution may continue as against applicant no.1. appln-3008-2025.odt (6) 10. The Secretary, High Court Legal Services Sub- Committee, Aurangabad is directed to pay remunaration of appointed counsel for respondent no.2, as per schedule. (S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.) Mujaheed//