1 927 apl 1487.23 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 1487/2023 (Bharti w/o Rajendra Dhepe Vs. State of Maharashtra & anr.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ms. A. Sharma, Advocate h/f Mr.P.R. Agrawal, Advocate for applicant. Mr. S. Ashirgade, APP for non-applicant No.1/State. Mr. D.S. Khushalani, Advocate for non-applicant No.2. CORAM: ANIL S. KILOR AND PRAVIN S. PATIL, JJ . DATED : 25/03/2025. Heard. 2. The complainant is a sister-in-law of the applicant in the First Information Report (“FIR”) bearing Crime No. 231/2023 registered with Sarmaspura, Amravati Rural, Dist. Amravati on 28.08.2023, which is sought to be quashed by the present application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The said FIR was registered against in all the nine accused persons. The applicant is accused No.7. The first complaint dated 28.03.2023 to the Police Station Officer, Paratwada Police Station, shows that the allegations against the applicant are that she being an Advocate used to give legal advise to informant’s husband and because of which he used to harass her. 3. The allegations are reproduced herein under in vernacular which reads thus:- “----- dkj.k rs vdksyk ;sFks vl.kkjk R;kapk odhy Jh- jkgwy Jh- <sis o Jh- jktsanz Jh- <sis (pqyr HkkÅ) vkf.k R;kph ck;dks ADV Hkkjrh <sis lYY;kuqlkj okxr vlwu vkEgkyk 2025:BHC-NAG:3257-DB 2 927 apl 1487.23 lrr /keD;k ikBohr vkgsr- rjh ekÖ;k uo&;kus vkEgkl btk iksgkso.;kpk iz;Ru dsY;kl vkf.k eksgY;kr vkf.k xkokr vkeph cnukeh djr vlY;kl R;kiklwu vkEgkyk laj{k.k feG.;kl ;kos vkf.k tj vkEgkl dkgh >kys rj R;k loZLoh ekÖ;k lkljpsp iw.kZi.ks tckcnkj vlrhy ;kph vki.k uksan ?;koh---------” 4. The informant thereafter, appeared before for counseling at Counseling Center, Police Station Achalpur, where she improvised her story and stated that the applicant is an Advocate and she harassed her in every manner. The allegations are reproduced herein under in vernacular which read thus:- “---------ekÖ;k tkÅ o lkljs gs is”kkuh odhy vkgs rj R;kauh lxG;k izdkjs eyk =kl fnyk jkst ek>k uojk ;sÅu electricity supply dV d:u tk;pk lyx 9 fnol eh vaa/kkjkr jkfgyh-” 5. After failure of counseling, the FIR came to be lodged, in which she made some vague allegations against the applicant which are reproduced herein under in vernacular which read thus:- “---yXukuarj ek>;k lklwdMs egky{eh dk;Zdze vlY;kus ek>h eksBh uuan 1 lkS flek xtkuu vjcV jk ijrokMk 2 tkm lkS Hkkjrh jktsanz <ssis jk vdksyk g;k dk;Zdzeke/;s lu 2017 e/;s vkY;k gksR;k rsOgk tkm Hkkjrh o uuan lkS flek vjcV g;k dkgh dkj.k ulrkauk FkksM;k FkksM;k xks"Vhoj ek>;k'kh okn d:u eyk ekulhd o 'kkjhjhd =kl nsr gksR;k rlsp eh R;kapk gks.kkjk =kl lgu d:u eh rsFksp jkgr gksrh es 2018 e/;s ek>h pqyr lklq gh ej.k ikoyh rsOgk ej.kkps varhe laLdkj dfjrk ek>h u.kan 1 lkS r`Irh nRrjkt c<s jk 'kkL=h uxj vdksyk 2 :ikyh dq.kky ns'keq[k jk vgenkckn g;k vkY;k gksR;k eyk ej.kkps 10 fnol R;k loZ ek>;k irhdMsp jkghY;k rsOgk dkgh dkj.k ulrkauk ek>;k frUgh 3 927 apl 1487.23 u.kn ;kauh yk lokZuh 'kkjhjhd o ekulhd =kl fnyk vkgs- ------- ek>;k uank g;k o tkm lkS Hkkjrh g;k Qksuoj [kwi okbZV cksyr gksR;k rq oka>ksVh vkgs rqyk eqy gksr ukgh rjh eh ek>s uo&;kps ?kj lksMys ukgh-------ek>s lklwus Qksu dsY;kus uojk ?kjh vkyk ukgh o ek>s lklq lkljs lqn/kk fu?kwu xsys eh ,dVhp rsOgk 3 eghus lkljh jkghyh R;k 3 eghU;kps dkyko/khr eyk ek>s Hkkljs jktsanz <sis o R;kaph ck;dks Hkkjrh <sis g;k Qksu d:u eyk rq ?kjkrwu fu?kqu tk ek>s ?kj vkgs o f'kohxkG djhr gksrs rlsp ek>s uanbZ xtkuu vjcV o u.kan lkS flek vjcV----” 6. If the allegations referred herein above are taken on its face value, it is evident that the allegations are vague and further, there is an improvisation at every stage. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of Dara Lakshmi Narayana & Others v. State of Telangana & Another, decided on 10.12.2024 has held thus:- “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 4 927 apl 1487.23 innocent family members….” 8. Thus, such generalized and sweeping accusations unsupported by any concrete evidence or particularized allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that no offence attracts against the applicant, even if the allegations made in the FIR are taken on its face value. 9. Accordingly, application is allowed. We hereby quash and set aside Charge-sheet No. 54/2023 dated 23.10.2023 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.2, Achalpur arising out of FIR bearing Crime No. 231/2023 registered with Police Station Sarmaspura, Amravati Rural, District Amravati for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code to the extent of the applicant, accused No.7. 10. Application stands disposed of in above terms. ( PRAVIN S. PATIL , J.) ( ANIL S. KILOR , J.) Gohane