1 APL 1892.25 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION [APL] NO. 1892 OF 2025 APPLICANTS : 1] Nitin Namdev Jadhav, (husband) Aged 40 years, Occu. Agriculturist, 2] Namdev Dhansing Jadhav, (father-in-law) Aged 60 years, Occu. Agriculturist, 3] Lilabai Namdev Jadhav, (mother-in-law) Aged 55 years, Occu. Agriculturist, 4] Dnyaneshwar Namdev Jadhav,(brother-in-law) Aged 35 years, Occu. Agriculturist, 5] Sau. Savita Mahendra Rathod, (Sister-in-law) Aged 37 years, Occu. Agriculturist, 6] Sau. Shamka Darasing Jadhav, (Sister-in-law) Aged 50 years, Occu. Agriculturist, Applicant 1 to 6 R/o Shevati, Ta. Karanja (Lad), dist. Washim, 7] Sangita Bhaurao Rathod, (Sister-in-law) Aged 42 years, Occu. Agriculturist, 8] Bhaurao Rathod, (Brother-in-law) Aged 48 years, Occu. Agriculturist, Applicant Nos. 7 and 8, R/o Januna, Tah. Mangrulpir, Dist. Washim. VERSUS NON-APPLICANTS : 1] State of Maharashtra, through Police Station Officer, Police Station, Mangrulpir, Dist. Washim. 2026:BHC-NAG:13969-DB 2 APL 1892.25 2] Sau. Archana W/o Nitin Jadhav, Aged about 34 years, Occu. Nil, R/o Pedgaon, Tah. Mangrulpir, Dist. Washim. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ms. Sapna S. Jadhav, Advocate for the applicants Mr. Indraneel J. Damle, A.P.P. for the non-applicant no.1/State Mrs. Radha Mishra, Advocate as Amicus Curiae -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : M. W. CHANDWANI, J. DATE : OCTOBER 08, 2026. ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. Heard. ADMIT. Taken up for final disposal forthwith by the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. This application filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), seeks quashing of First Information Report (FIR) No. 173/2025 dated 10.03.2025 registered with Police Station, Mangrul Pir, Dist. Washim for the offence punishable under Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) [corresponding Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)], consequent Charge-sheet No. 109/2025 dated 29.04.2025 and Regular Criminal Case No. 108/2025 pending before the learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division 3 APL 1892.25 and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mangrulpir. 3. The facts of the case, in brief, are as under : (i) Applicant no.1 is the husband of the complainant/non- applicant no.2, whereas applicant nos.2 to 8 are the relatives of applicant no.1. The marriage of the complainant with applicant no.1 was solemnized on 23.04.2013. After marriage, the complainant went to cohabit with applicant no.1 at their matrimonial house where applicant nos.2 to 5 were also residing as members of the joint family. (ii) The FIR depicts that after the marriage, applicant no.1 treated the complainant with respect and consideration for 5 – 6 years. During the said period, they were blessed with a girl child. Thereafter, it is alleged that applicant no.1 started assaulting the complainant under the influence of liquor, suspecting her character and insulting her. Applicant no.1 started to harassing the complainant physically and mentally by demanding money from her parental house. It is further alleged that applicant no.4 used to look at the complainant with lustful intent when other family members were not at home and used to constantly keep watch on her. It is alleged that applicant nos.2 to 8 were instigating 4 APL 1892.25 applicant no.1 to harass the complainant. (iii) On 10.01.2019, the complainant gave birth to her 2nd child, a baby boy. It is alleged that later on, applicant no.1 forcibly took away the baby from the custody of the complainant. It is also alleged that applicant nos.2 and 3 asked the complainant and applicant no.1 to reside separately in the same house. (iv) The FIR further depicts that, in 2024 at the time of Diwali festival, applicant no.1 assaulted the complainant and informed her brother over phone that the complainant is dead and to take her away. Accordingly, the brother of the complainant went to the matrimonial house of the complainant and brought her with him at her parental house and since then she is residing there. 4. Heard Mrs. Sapna S. Jadhav, learned counsel appearing for the applicants, Mr. Indraneel Damle, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for non-applicant no.1/State and Mrs. Radha Mishra, learned Amicus Curiae. Perused the charge-sheet. 5. At the outset, it is to be noted that the learned counsel for the applicants has not pressed the application qua applicant no.1. Therefore, the present application shall be considered with 5 APL 1892.25 regards to applicant nos.2 to 8 herein. 6. The learned counsel appearing for non-applicant no.2 has drawn the attention of this Court towards the FIR, wherein it is stated that when the father of the complainant was passing through the village for election campaigning applicant nos.1 to 4 along with some other persons restrained the father of the complainant, caught hold of his collar and manhandled him. Thereafter, the applicants went to the house of the complainant’s father wherein applicant no.1 assaulted the complainant while other applicants abused the complainant. Attention is also drawn to the allegation in the FIR in respect of the incident at the agricultural field of the father of the complainant which is adjacent to the agricultural field of applicant nos.2 and 3. It is alleged that when the complainant and her brother were working in their field, applicant nos.1 to 4 arrived there and assaulted the complainant by fist blow and forcibly removed her jewellery. Thereafter, the complainant’s brother reported this incident to the police station where the police referred the complainant to the hospital for medical treatment and registered a Non-Cognizable Report. 6 APL 1892.25 7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicants as well as the learned APP and having gone through the charge-sheet, it is transpired that all allegations of assault and harassment are mainly against applicant no.1. The role assigned to applicant nos.2, 3 and 5 to 8 is that they used to instigate applicant no.1 to harass the complainant. Thus, in the FIR as well as the statement of the complainant, only omnibus statements are made against applicant nos.2 to 8 without providing any specific details with regards to the date, time and place of the incident. Thus, the allegations against applicant nos.2 to 8 with regard to instigation are general and vague in nature. 8. Be that as it may, the charge-sheet is filed against the applicants for the offence under Section 85 of the BNS only. So far as the incidence of assault by the applicants occurred in the field of the father of the complainant is concerned, the said matter was immediately reported to the police authority. This fact is revealed from the statement of the complainant. The police authorities did not take cognizance of the incident and registered a Non- Cognizable Report. It appears while lodging the FIR for the offence punishable under Section 85 of the BNS, a stale incident was also 7 APL 1892.25 added in it. Having found that the police has already refuted to take congnizance of that incident, nothing was found in the form of medical evidence that the complainant sustained any injury or hurt. 9. In order to appreciate the arguments of the learned counsel for the respective parties, it is now pertinent to analyze Section 85 read with Section 86 of the BNS so as to reach to a proper conclusion which reads as under :- “85. 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. The above section states that whoever being in the role of the husband or relative of the husband of a women subjects the women to cruelty shall be punished. Section 86 of the BNS reads as under : “86. Cruelty Defined : For the purposes of Section 85, “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 8 APL 1892.25 with a view to coercing 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.” Thus, Section 86 of the BNS defines Cruelty as any willful conduct of such a nature that will lead the women to commit suicide or harm herself (mentally or physically) or such harassment inflicted upon the women seeking to meet unlawful demand for property or valuable security or such harassment inflicted on account of failure to meet such demand by the women or person related to her. 10. In the light of the above contentions and analysis, all the allegations in the present FIR lodged by the complainant are now required to be considered so as to determine the veracity of the allegations. As stated above, the allegation against applicant nos.2 to 8 is that they instigated applicant no.1 to harass the complainant. However, the allegations are general and vague in nature. No specific allegation is levelled against applicant nos.2 to 8 with regard to any harassment or cruelty which is defined under Section 86 of the BNS. Even there is no corroborative material in the entire charge-sheet supporting the general allegations levelled 9 APL 1892.25 by the complainant against applicant nos.2 to 8. 11. Apart from this, there are allegations against applicant no.4, maternal cousin of applicant no.1 that he used to look at the complainant with bad intentions and stalk her. These allegations are general in nature and without any specific details of date, time and place of particular incident. Apart from this, there is no material in the entire charge-sheet corroborating the vague and general allegations against applicant no.4. 12. The present case is one of such cases wherein, all the relatives of the husband are roped in litigation by making vague and general allegations of harassment without there being specific details of subjecting the complainant to cruelty. 13. It may be mentioned here that in the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors, reported at (2022) 6 SCC 599, the Supreme Court has expressed concern over the misuse of Section 498A of the IPC and increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in the matrimonial disputes, without analyzing the long term ramifications of a trial on the 10 APL 1892.25 complainant as well as the accused. It is held that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. The Apex Court has, therefore, warned the Courts from proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them. 14. Similarly, the Supreme Court in the case of Maram Nirmala and anr. Vs. State of Telangana and anr., reported at 2025 SCC Online SC 2913 in para nos. 14, 16 and 17 has observed as under:- “14. The case at hand pertains to allegations of cruelty and dowry demand made by the respondent No. 2 against the appellant(s) herein. A bare perusal of the FIR however, shows that the allegations made by respondent No. 2 are vague and omnibus inasmuch as there is an absence of any specific instance or occasion detailed with particulars wherein the appellant(s) demanded dowry from respondent No. 2 and on refusal of the same, subjected her to mental and physical cruelty. The only allegations levelled by respondent No. 2 against the appellants herein are that subsequent to the birth of her daughter, the conduct of her husband underwent a change, which is stated to have been on account of the alleged inducement exercised by the in-laws including the appellant(s) herein for the purpose of demanding additional dowry and that pursuant to the counselling conducted at the Women Police Station, Nalgonda, although the husband of respondent No. 2 and his family assured that she would be treated properly, they nevertheless continued to subject respondent No. 2 to mental and physical cruelty. ... 16. During the course of submissions, learned counsel for the appellant(s) brought to our notice the judgment of this Court in the case of Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana, 11 APL 1892.25 (2025) 3 SCC 735 (“Dara Lakshmi Narayana”) as well as other judgments which squarely apply to this case. We have perused the same. 17. This Court speaking through one of us (B.V. Nagarathna, J.) in Dara Lakshmi Narayana, while dealing with the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings instituted by the respondent wife therein against her husband and in-laws who were charged with offences punishable under Sections 498A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act, 1961, held as follows: “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. In the present case, Appellants 2 to 6, who are the members of the family of Appellant 1 have been living in different cities and have not resided in the matrimonial house of Appellant 1 and Respondent 2 herein. Hence, they cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution and the same would be an abuse of the process of the law in the absence of specific allegations made against each of them. xxx 30. The inclusion of Section 498-A 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 the institution of marriage, consequently, there has been a growing tendency to misuse provisions like Section 498-A 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 scrutinised, 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 498-A IPC against the husband and his family in order to seek compliance with the unreasonable demands of 12 APL 1892.25 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. xxx 31. We are not, for a moment, stating that any woman who has suffered cruelty in terms of what has been contemplated under Section 498-A IPC should remain silent and forbear herself from making a complaint or initiating any criminal proceeding. That is not the intention of our aforesaid observations but we should not encourage a case like as in the present one, where as a counterblast to the petition for dissolution of marriage sought by the first appellant, husband of the second respondent herein, a complaint under Section 498-A IPC is lodged by the latter. In fact, the insertion of the said provision is meant mainly for the protection of a woman who is subjected to cruelty in the matrimonial home primarily due to an unlawful demand for any property or valuable security in the form of dowry. However, sometimes it is misused as in the present case. xxx 34. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the impugned FIR No. 82 of 2022 filed by Respondent 2 was initiated with ulterior motives to settle personal scores and grudges against Appellant 1 and his family members i.e. Appellants 2 to 6 herein. Hence, the present case at hand falls within Category (7) of illustrative parameters highlighted in Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426]. Therefore, the High Court, in the present case, erred in not exercising the powers available to it under Section 482CrPC and thereby failed to prevent abuse of the Court's process by continuing the criminal prosecution against the appellants.” 15. The upshot of the above said discussion is that the allegations of assault, harassment and stalking levelled against applicant nos.2 to 8 are general, omnibus and vague in nature without specifying any details and without being supported by any corroborative material. Upon a conjoint consideration of the 13 APL 1892.25 allegations and the material available on record, no essential ingredients of the offence under Section 85 of the BNS are made out against applicant nos. 2 to 8. 16. 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, reported at 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 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 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. 14 APL 1892.25 (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.” 17. In view of the above, the case of the applicants is covered by clause (1) of para 102 of the decision in Bhajan Lal (supra). 18. Therefore, I find substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the applicants. Considering the facts mentioned above, a case is made out for exercise of the inherent 15 APL 1892.25 powers of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS in favour of the applicants. Hence, the following order is passed : ORDER (i) The Criminal Application is partly allowed. (ii) The application of applicant no.1 - Nitin Namdev Jadhav is dismissed as not pressed. (iii) The application of applicant nos.2 to 8 is allowed. (iv) First Information Report No. 173/2025 dated 10.03.2025 registered with Police Station, Mangrul Pir, Dist. Washim for the offence punishable under Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, consequent Charge-sheet No. 109/2025 dated 29.04.2025 and Regular Criminal Case No. 108/2025 pending before the learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mangrulpir, are quashed and set aside qua applicant nos 2 to 8. (v) The application stands disposed of in the above terms. (M.W.Chandwani, J.) Diwale Signed by: DIWALE Designation: Senior Pvt. Secretary Date: 16/10/2026 18:55:17