1 apl1349.25.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.1349 OF 2025 1. Sau. Archana W/o Santosh Thipe Aged about 42 years, Occ: Household, (sister-in-law) 2. Shri Santosh s/o Ramdas Thipe, Aged about 43 years, Occ: Range Forest Officer, (brother-in-law) Both applicants presently residing at Rambagh, Forest Colony, Mul Road, Chandrapur – 442401. ...APPLICANTS ...V E R S U S... 1. State of Maharashtra Through Police Station Officer, Police Station, Gadchandur District Chandrapur. 2. Sau. Mamta W/o Amol Wadaskar Aged about 34 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o Ward No.5, Gadchandur, Korpana, Chandrapur. Maharashtra ...NON-APPLICANTS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri M.A. Vishwarupe, Advocate for applicants. Shri N.H. Joshi, APP for non-applicant no.1. Ms S.A. Raut, Advocate for non-applicant no.2. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM:- M.W. CHANDWANI, J. DATE :- 24.08.2026 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. Admit. 2026:BHC-NAG:11262-DB 2 apl1349.25.odt 2. The applicants seek quashing of First Information Report bearing Crime No.160/2025 registered with Police Station, Gadchandur, District Chandrapur for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 354A, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”) and charge-sheet filed in Regular Criminal Case No.158/2025. 3. At the outset, it is to be noted here that applicant nos.2 has not pressed his application with liberty to take appropriate legal remedy available under the law, including application for discharge. Therefore, the present application is restricted to applicant no.1 only. 4. The charge-sheet indicates that the marriage between non-applicant no.2/complainant and co-accused – Amol Wadaskar was performed on 18.06.2018 at Rajura. Applicant no.1 is the married sister of co-accused – Amol Wadaskar i.e. sister-in-law of the complainant. After marriage, the husband of the complainant started comparing the complainant with other girls. He also used to abuse her and was asking for unnatural sex. It is alleged in the FIR that co-accused mother-in-law and father-in-law used to ask the complainant for a flat. Co-accused – Amol Wadaskar also used 3 apl1349.25.odt to ask the complainant’s father to buy a flat at Pune. It is further alleged that co-accused – Amol Wadaskar asked the complainant to bring an amount of 7 lakhs from her father as his brother has ₹ also received 7 lakhs as dowry. When the complainant had been ₹ to Gadchandur, mother-in-law– Savita Madhukar Wadaskar assaulted her; whereas, co-accused – Amol Wadaskar, father-in- law and mother-in-law used to ask her to bring gold bracelet, necklace and chain. There are allegations against applicant no.2 of pressurizing the complainant to bring the amount of 7 lakhs ₹ which he had given to her husband for the marriage ceremony or else he will persuade her husband i.e. co-accused – Amol Wadaskar to divorce her. There are allegations of molestation against applicant no.2. Therefore, on the complaint of non- applicant no.2, the aforesaid offence came to be registered against the applicants and the other co-accused. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants vehemently submitted that there is no allegation against applicant no.1 who is the sister of co-accused – Amol Wadaskar and the wife of applicant no.2. It is contended that the allegation against applicant no.1 is general in nature without giving any specific details. It is contended that the allegation against applicant no.1 is 4 apl1349.25.odt of pressurizing the complainant not to disclose the incident of molestation to anybody. According to him, even if the contents of the FIR are accepted at their face value, no offence is made out against applicant no.1. Therefore, continuation of prosecution against applicant no.1 would be nothing but an abuse of the process of law. He strenuously argued that this Court must exercise its inherent power to quash the FIR. 6. Per contra, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State, assisted by learned counsel for the complainant objected to the application on the ground that there are allegations against applicant no.1 of harassing the complainant. According to him, whether applicant no.1 has committed the offence or not can only be crystallized during the trial. Hence, he sought rejection of the application. 7. Perusal of the charge-sheet would indicate that the main allegation of abuses and assault as well as demand of dowry are against other co-accused and the allegations of demand 7 ₹ lakhs which he has spent in the marriage of complainant and co- accused – Amol Wadaskar are against applicant no.2. The role assigned to applicant no.1 is that she asked the complainant about 5 apl1349.25.odt her father’s salary. It is also alleged against applicant no.1 in the FIR that when the alleged incident of molestation and threat by showing a revolver as well as demanding amount of 7 lakhs by ₹ applicant no.2 i.e. brother-in-law of co-accused – Amol Wadaskar had happened, applicant no.1 threatened the complainant that she should not disclose the said incident to anybody or else she will kill her. Apart from this, there is no other allegation against applicant no.1 who is sister of co-accused–Amol Wadaskar. 8. Cruelty is defined under Section 498A which reads thus: “498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.—Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, “cruelty” means— (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the 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 where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to 6 apl1349.25.odt 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.” 9. Section 498A of the IPC defines the word cruelty as any willful conduct of such a nature that will lead the woman to commit suicide or harm herself (mentally or physically) or such harassment inflicted upon the woman seeking to meet unlawful demand for property or valuable security or such harassment inflicted on account of failure to meet such demand by the woman or any person related to her. 10. It is not that every harassment inflicted upon the complainant would fall within the ambit of the word cruelty. There are no allegations against applicant no.1 that she used to harass the complainant with the object to meet any unlawful demand. The allegation of asking the salary of the father of the complainant and threatening her not to disclose the incident of the alleged molestation does not come under the purview of harassment so as to provoke the complainant to commit suicide or meet any unlawful demand. It does not come under the ambit of cruelty which is covered under Explanation (a) and (b) of Section 498A of the IPC. The allegations made by the complainant against 7 apl1349.25.odt applicant no.1 does not demonstrate that it is her willful conduct which is of such a nature which is likely to drive the complainant to commit suicide or to cause grave injury as defined in Explanation (a) of Section 498A of the IPC. There is no allegation of harassment at the hands of applicant no.1 that the alleged harassment was with a view to harass her or any person related to her for any unlawful demand. The allegation of demand of gold bracelet, necklace and chain and amount of 7 lakhs is against co ₹ accused – Amol Wadaskar. 11. Thus, after scrutiny of the FIR and the statements of the complainant, it is revealed that only vague and general allegations are levelled against applicant no.1 which are bereft of any specific details. 12. Merely making vague and omnibus statements that applicant no.1 threatened her and asked her about her father’s salary without any other corroborating material is not sufficient to initiate criminal proceedings against applicant no.1. There is no other material in the entire record except the vague and general statements against applicant no.1. Sweeping accusations without concrete evidence or particularized allegations, cannot form the basis for a criminal prosecution. Considering the FIR as well as the 8 apl1349.25.odt written complaint filed by the complainant to the concerned police station, even if the allegations made in the said complaint are taken at their face value, in my view, no offence whatsoever under Section 498A of the IPC is made out against applicant no.1. 13. As regards Section 354A is concerned, the allegations of molestation are against applicant no.2 and not against applicant no.1. 14. So far as the offence punishable under Section 506 of the IPC is concerned, the said offence is non-cognizable in nature and therefore, the police could not have undertaken an investigation without obtaining a prior order from the Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Cr.P.C. Once the offence under Section 498A and 354A of the IPC are excluded, the FIR does not prima facie disclose any other cognizable offence. 15. It will be appropriate to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajanlal and others 1, which reads thus: “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power 1 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 9 apl1349.25.odt under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we have given the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. 10 apl1349.25.odt (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 16. In view of the above, the present case squarely falls under clauses (4) of para 102 of the decision of Bhajanlal (supra) 17. Considering the facts mentioned above, a case is made out for quashing of the FIR and the consequential proceedings. Hence, the following order is passed: (i) The application is partly allowed. 11 apl1349.25.odt (ii) First Information Report bearing Crime No.160/2025 registered with Police Station, Gadchandur, District Chandrapur for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 354A, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the charge- sheet filed in Regular Criminal Case No.158/2025 qua applicant no.1 are hereby quashed and set aside. (iii) The application stands disposed of. (M.W. CHANDWANI J.) Wagh Signed by: Mr. S.R. Wagh Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 28/08/2026 19:30:21