Judgment 1 J-APL No.1059.2026.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 1059 OF 2026 Sushmita Manoj Sarpe, Aged about 22 years, Occupation : Education, R/o. Kinwat, Tah. Kinwat, District Nanded. …. APPLICANT // VERSUS // 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through the Police Station Officer, Police Station Mahagaon, Tah. Mahagaon, Distt. Yavatmal. 2) Sau. Sangita Vishal Dahale, Aged 30 years, Occupation : Household, R/o. C/o. Pandit Rama Rathod, New Yashwantnagar, Behind Ambedkar Hostel, Hinganghat, Tq. Hinganghat, District Wardha. …. N ON-APPLICANTS _____________________________________________________________ Mr. A. A. Zade, Advocate for applicant. Mr. A. G. Mate, Additional Public Prosecutor for non- applicant No.1/State. Ms. Radha Mishra,Advocate (appointed) for non-applicant No.2. _____________________________________________________________ CORAM : M.W. CHANDWANI, J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 16, 2026 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Admit. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2026:BHC-NAG:12688 Judgment 2 J-APL No.1059.2026.odt 2. The applicant seeks quashing of the First Information Report (FIR) No.124/2026, dated 27.02.2026, registered with Police Station, Mahagaon, District Yavatmal for the offences punishable under Sections 85, 115(2), 351(2), 351(3), 352 read with Section 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short the “BNS”) and consequent Chargesheet No.86/2026 dated 27.04.2026 bearing Regular Criminal Case No.65/2026, pending before learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mahagaon, District Yavatmal. 3. The chargesheet indicates that co-accused Vishal Dahale is the husband of non-applicant No.2/complainant whereas, the present applicant is allegedly a friend of co-accused Vishal Dahale. Non-applicant No.2 lodged a complaint against her husband Vishal Dahale and his sister as well as the present applicant alleging cruelty. The allegations levelled against the present applicant-Sushmita Manoj Sarpe are that on 23.10.2025, she called non-applicant No.2 on her mother-in-law’s mobile phone and asked her not to reside in the house of co-accused Vishal Dahale. She also threatened non-applicant No.2 and asked her to divorce co-accused Vishal Dahale or else she will lodge a complaint against her under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1983 (for short “SC ST Act”). Non-applicant No.2 further alleged that Judgment 3 J-APL No.1059.2026.odt the present applicant was having an illicit relationship with her husband i.e. co-accused Vishal Dahale. Therefore, the present applicant was made an accused in this case. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant, learned APP along with learned counsel appointed for non-applicant No.2/complainant and having gone through the FIR and the chargesheet, it appears that applicant-Sushmita is not a relative of co-accused Vishal Dahale. The allegation levelled against applicant- Sushmita is that she has an illicit relationship with the husband of non-applicant No.2-Vishal Dahale. She also threatened her to divorce co-accused Vishal Dahale or else she will lodge a false complaint against her. 5. It is to be noted here that for bringing a person within the ambit of Section 85 of the BNS, he must be the husband or relative of the husband. There is no dispute that applicant-Sushmita is not a relative of co-accused-Vishal Dahale, related to him by virtue of either marriage, blood or by adoption and she belongs to a different family. Therefore, she cannot be termed as relative of the husband under Section 85 of the BNS. That apart, the allegation made against her is that she was having a love relationship with co-accused-Vishal Dahale and she threatened non-applicant No.2 that she will lodge a false Judgment 4 J-APL No.1059.2026.odt complaint. Even if this statement of non-applicant No.2 is considered, such allegations would not come within the purview of Section 85 of the BNS. A reference can be made to the decision of U.Suvetha Vs. State by Inspector of Police [2009 (6) SCC 757] as well as Abdul Salim Ahmad Abdul Jabbar and another Vs. State of Maharashtra and another [Cri. APL No.1054/2022, decided on 12.07.2023], (Nagpur Bench). 6. There are no allegations that the applicant caused any bodily pain, disease or infirmity to non-applicant No.2 and therefore, Section 115(2) of the BNS is not attracted against the applicant. 7. This takes me to the allegation against the present applicant is that she has merely called non-applicant No.2 on her mother-in-law’s mobile phone, asked her not to reside in the house of co-accused Vishal Dahale and also threatened non-applicant No.2 to divorce co-accused Vishal Dahale or else she will lodge a complaint against her under the provisions of the SC ST Act. 8. Section 352 of the BNS provides punishment for intentionally insulting with intent to provoke breach of peace. The Courts have time and again emphasized that mere abusive language without the likelihood of provoking public disorder does not fall Judgment 5 J-APL No.1059.2026.odt under Section 352; the insult must be of such a nature that a reasonable person in those circumstances would be provoked to disturb peace. 9. Be that as it may, there is nothing on record to suggest that the present applicant abused non-applicant No.2 with an intent to provoke breach of peace at the hands of non-applicant No.2. Rather, the present applicant called on the mobile phone of the mother-in-law of non-applicant No.2, asked her not to reside in the house of co-accused Vishal Dahale and also threatened her to divorce co-accused Vishal Dahale. This itself shows that non-applicant No.2 was not provoked with an intention to cause breach of peace as they were talking on the mobile phone. Thus, the facts emerging from the chargesheet do not suggest anything based on which any sort of inference can be drawn that non-applicant No.2 was abused with intent to provoke breach of peace. Therefore, the ingredients of Section 352 of the BNS also do not appear to be fulfilled. 10. Lastly, what remains is the bald allegation of threatening the complainant levelled under Sections 351(2) and 351(3) of the BNS i.e. the offences of criminal intimidation. Perusal of the chargesheet does not indicate any supporting material to substantiate the allegation of threat. Therefore, no case is made out under Section Judgment 6 J-APL No.1059.2026.odt 351 as well. Even otherwise, Sections 351(2) and 351(3) are non- cognizable in nature. 11. It will be appropriate to refer to the decision of the supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajan Lal and others [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335] wherein, the Court has postulated 7 categories where the Court can exercise its inherent powers to quash the FIR. Para 102 of the decision has been reproduced as under : “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 under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give 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 F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except Judgment 7 J-APL No.1059.2026.odt 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. (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.” 12. None of the offences mentioned in the chargesheet are made out against the present applicant, justifying an investigation by the Police. Thus, the case of the applicant is squarely covered by the decision of Bhajan Lal (supra). Therefore, a case is made out for exercising the inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 of the Judgment 8 J-APL No.1059.2026.odt Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to quash the FIR and consequent proceedings. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order : (i) The Criminal Application is allowed. (ii) FIR No.124/2026, dated 27.02.2026, registered with Police Station, Mahagaon, District Yavatmal for the offences punishable under Sections 85, 115(2), 351(2), 351(3), 352 read with Section 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and consequent Chargesheet No.86/2026 dated 27.04.2026 bearing Regular Criminal Case No.65/2026, pending before learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mahagaon, District Yavatmal, are hereby quashed and set aside qua the present applicant. (iii) Fees of the learned counsel appointed to represent non- applicant No.2 be quantified and paid as per relevant rules. 13. The criminal application is disposed of. (M.W. CHANDWANI, J.) Kirtak Signed by: Mr. B.J. Kirtak Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 24/09/2026 17:27:24