AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard.
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsels for the parties.
Both the applications are arising out of the same First Information Report (FIR) therefore, they are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.
The applicants in both the applications seek quashing of FIR No. 10/2026 registered with Police Station Buldhana City, Dist. Buldhana initially registered for the offence punishable under Sections 85, 351(2), 351(3), 318, 74 and 75 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) [corresponding Sections 498A, 506, 420, 354 and 354A of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (IPC)] along with the consequent Charge-sheet No. 82/2026 and RCC No.114/2026 pending on the file of 9th Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Buldhana.
The brief facts of the case, as per the FIR, are as under:-
The complainant in both the applications is the same. The applicants in APL No. 32/2026 are the relatives of the husband of the complainant/non-applicant no.2 whereas, the applicant in APL No.40/2026 is not related to the husband of the complainant by way of blood, marriage or adoption.
ii) The marriage of the complainant with co-accused-Shubham Onkarlal Gupta was solemnized on 16.05.2025. After the marriage, she went to her matrimonial house with co-accused-Shubham for co-habitation. On 07.01.2026, the complainant lodged complaint with the Police alleging that after the marriage, the applicants behaved with her properly for a few days. Thereafter, co-accused- Shubham used to come back home late in the night from his shop and after coming from the shop used to assault her without any reason. Co-accused- Shubham used to harass the complainant stating that the parents of the complainant did not give her adequate dowry. It is also alleged that co-accused- Shubham asked the complainant to bring money from her paternal house.
iii) The allegations against applicant no.2- Onkarlal Gupta, the father-in-law of the complainant is that he used to mentally harass the complainant, demanding teak-wood furniture from her paternal house. Whereas, applicant no.3- Durga Gupta, the mother-in-law of the complainant has been assigned the role of taunting the complainant stating to the complainant that her mother has not taught her any household work. Whereas, applicant no.4- Sheetal Gupta, the wife of brother-in-law of the complainant used to provoke applicant no.3-mother-in-law of the complainant when she was taunting the complainant for not knowing household work. Whenever, applicant no.5- Ashwin Gupta, the brother-in-law of the complainant used to console the complainant, applicant no.3- the mother-in-law used to suspect the character of the complainant. Moreover, applicant nos.2 to 3, mother-in-law and father-in-law of the complainant used to provoke co-accused- Shubham and thereby co-accused- Shubham used to assault the complainant. The allegation against applicant nos. 6-Omprakash Gupta and applicant no.8- Kapil Gupta are that they were the mediators while arranging the marriage of the complainant with co-accused- Shubham however, they did not inform the complainant that co-accused- Shubham is a drunkard.
iv) It is stated in the FIR that the applicant in APL No. 40/2026 Sharwani Patwari is the friend of co-accused- Shubham. With regard to this, it is stated that co-accused- Shubham used to roam around with her till 2:00 am in night. It is alleged that for these reasons, co-accused- Shubham, the husband of the complainant, assaulted and abused the complainant and ousted her from her matrimonial house. Since then she is residing in her paternal house. On the complaint lodged by the complainant, the aforesaid offences came to be registered against the applicants in each of the application and co-accused- Shubham.
Before proceeding with the contentions of the learned counsel for the respective parties, it is germane to note here that vide letter dated 16.01.2026, the Investigating Officer (IO) informed the JMFC, Buldhana that in the present case addition of Section 3(5) of the BNS and deletion of Sections 74, 75 and 318 of the BNS has been effected pursuant to the investigation. Accordingly, the contentions with regards to remaining offences registered against the applicants shall be considered herein below.
The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that applicant- Narayani @ Sharwani Patwari in APL No.40/2026 has nothing to do with the domestic affairs of the complainant and her matrimonial family. She is not related to co-accused- Shubham by way of blood, marriage or adoption. The allegation against her is that she used to roam around along with co-accused- Shubham till 2:00 am. According to him, even if it is presumed that the applicant is a paramour of co-accused- Shubham, she cannot be held liable for the offence under Section 85 of the BNS as she is not a relative of the applicants in APL No.32/2026. Therefore, she cannot be prosecuted for the offences punishable under Section 85 of the BNS. To buttress his submission, he seeks to rely on the decision of this Court in the case of Punam Sureshrao Aundhakar Vs. State of Maharashtra and another [Cri. APL No.677/2023, decided on 19.10.2023].
The learned counsel for the applicants vehemently submitted that only general allegations have been leveled against each of the applicant without giving any specific details. According to him, even if those allegations are accepted that cannot be treated as cruelty within the meaning of Section 85 of the BNS. According to him, the allegations made against the applicants are a part of wear and tear of marital life and cannot be aggravated into cruelty within the meaning of Section 86 of the BNS. He vehemently submitted that there are no allegation of demand of dowry against any of the applicants. Most of the applicants are uncles and aunts and the distant relatives of co-accused- Shubham. Therefore, according to him, even if the allegations in the FIR are accepted, they do not constitute cruelty within the meaning of Section 85 of the BNS. Therefore, prays for quashing of the FIR and consequent proceedings against the applicants in each application.
Per contra, learned APP for the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of non-applicant no.2 stated that all the applicants were harassing the complainant by one way or another. There are specific allegations against each of the applicant which can be tried during the course of trial. Hence, they sought rejection of both the applications.
Having heard the learned counsel for the applicants and learned APP along with learned counsel for the complainant and having gone through the FIR and the charge-sheet, it appears that applicant- Sharwani in APL No. 40/2026 is not a relative of co-accused- Shubham. The allegation is made against her in one line that she used to roam around with co-accused- Shubham, the husband of the complainant till 2:00 am. Due to her, co-accused- Shubham used to abuse and assault the complainant. In the written complaint made by the complainant to the Superintendent of Police it is alleged that co-accused- Shubham was having love relationship with applicant-Sharwani. Thus, there are allegations of the complainant that her husband co-accused- Shubham was having an illicit relationship with her.
It is to be noted 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- Sharwani is not a relative of co-accused- Shubham out of 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 IPC. That apart, the allegation against her are that she was having a love relationship with co-accused- Shubham prior to marriage of the complainant with co-accused- Shubham and after marriage she used to roam around with co-accused- Shubham till 2:00 am. Even if this fact of the complainant is considered, such allegations would not come within the couture 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].
Turning to the allegation against the applicants in APL No.32/2026, it is to be noted that co-accused- Shubham, the husband of the complainant is not a applicant herein.
Perusal of the FIR and statement of the complainant reveals that the allegations of demand of Rs.10 lakhs and Four Wheeler are against co-accused- Shubham. The allegation against applicant no.6- Omprakash Gupta and applicant no.8- Kapil Gupta, the uncles of co-accused- Shubham who reside separately from co-accused-Shubham are that they were the mediators in fixing the marriage of the complainant with co-accused- Shubham. It is alleged against them that they did not inform the complainant that co-accused- Shubham is a habitual drinker. Further, the allegation against applicant no.8- Kapil Gupta is that he used to provoke co-accused- Shubham and applicant no.2 and applicant no.3 against the complainant. These same allegations are also levelled against applicant no.1- Kanahiyalal Gupta as well as applicant no.7- Nirmala. Likewise, the allegations against applicant no.4-Shital Gupta is that she used to tell the complainant that she did not work properly and used provoke her mother-in-law. Same allegations are levelled against applicant no.9- Shraddha Gupta, the sister-in-law of the complainant that she used to instigate the husband, the father-in-law and the mother-in-law of the complainant by showing lacuna in her work.
All these general allegations are made by the complainant against the applicants without providing any specific details and corroborative material in support of the allegations. All these persons except applicant nos.4 & 5 were residing separately and not in the same house where the complainant resided. Though, there are allegations of provoking/instigating co-accused- Shubham by applicant nos.2 and 3 however, no details whatsoever are provided that how and in what manner without giving any details or time, date or place have they done the said act. Thus, merely vague allegations are levelled against these applicants by way of omnibus statements. Further, the statement of other witnesses are stereo-type statement. The entire statement of the witnesses appears to be a copy pasted work from the complainant’s statement wherein even the word, comma, and full stop are placed similarly with one additional line by the witnesses i.e. this was stated by the complainant to them. In the statements of each of the witness not even a single word is here and there and those statements are written mechanically on record in the charge-sheet.
This takes me to the case of applicant nos. 2 and 3 i.e. the father-in-law and the mother-in-law of the complainant. In the FIR and statement, the complainant stated that applicant no.2 demanded teak-wood furniture from her and for that he used to mentally harass her. Likewise, allegation against applicant no.3 is that she used to make the complainant work like a maid and used to cast aspersions that her mother has not taught her anything. However, in the above allegations there are no specific incidents stated by the complainant against applicant no. 2 as to when and in what manner he harassed the complainant while asking teak-wood furniture from her paternal house. Apart from the above statement, there is no material against these applicants to corroborate the allegation made in the FIR or in the statement of the complainant. Likewise, the allegation against applicant no.3 is also bereft of specific details or otherwise the incident of harassment by her.
It is now pertinent to analyze Sections 85 and 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 85 of the BNS 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. Furthermore, 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 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.”
Section 86 of the BNS defines the word 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.
It is not that every harassment inflicted upon the complainant would fall within the ambit of the word cruelty. Above stated allegations made by the complainant against each of the applicants does not demonstrate that it is their willful conduct which is of such a nature which is likely to drive the complainant to commit suicide or to cause grave injury as define in Clause (a) of Section 86 of the BNS. There is no allegation of harassment at the hands of these applicants that those alleged harassment was with a view to exercise her or any person related to her for any unlawful demand and on account of failure of the complainant to meet such demand. The allegation of demand of car and amount of Rs.10 lakhs is against co-accused- Shubham. It is to be noted here that the complainant has dragged almost 10 persons other than her husband in the present litigation. She in this case even roped in the uncles and aunts of her husband, who are residing separately from her husband’s family. She even has roped the persons who had mediated in the marriage in this litigation merely because she was not intimated by them of her husband’s habit of habitually drinking liquor, rather there are no other allegations against applicant nos. 6 and 8 except this.
Thus, after scrutiny of the FIR and the statements of the complainant and other witnesses, which are nothing but a replica of the statement of the complainant as well as the FIR, only vague and general allegations are levelled against applicant nos. 1 to 9 bereft of any specific details. All these persons reside separately from co-accused- Shubham and applicant nos. 1 and 2 which clearly demonstrate that the applicants have been roped in the present litigation so as to just create pressure upon them.
It may be mentioned that in the case of Kahkashan Kausar @Sonam and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors, [(2022) 6 SCC 599], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has expressed concern over the misuse of Section 498A of the IPC and increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analyzing the long term ramifications of a trial on the 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.
Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maram Nirmala and anr. Vs. State of Telangana and anr. [2025 SCC Online SC 2913] has 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, (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-AIPC 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 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.”
Merely making vague and omnibus statement that the present applicants in chorus harassed her mentally and physically without any other corroborating material is not sufficient to initiate criminal proceeding against the applicants. There is no other material in the entire record except the above vague and general statements against the applicants. Sweeping accusations without concrete evidence or particularized allegations, cannot form the basis for a criminal prosecution.
The present case is one of such cases wherein all the relatives of the husband are dragged in the matrimonial dispute without there being specific allegations against them for subjecting complainant to cruelty within the meaning of Clause (a) or (b) of explanation to Section 86 of the BNS. In the absence of such material, subjecting these applicants to face criminal trial will be an abuse of the process of Court.
Sofaras, the submission of non-applicant no.2 that applicant no.2 used to touch her inappropriately is concerned, the IO did not find any substance in her allegation therefore, in final report of the charge-sheet, the charges for offence punishable under Sections 74 and 75 of the BNS were dropped.
At this stage, it would be appropriate to rely on 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 in para 102 it has been observed 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 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.”
Hence, in my considered view, this is a fit case to exercise discretion under Section 528 of the BNSS to prevent the abuse of the process of Court. Therefore, a case is made out for exercising the inherent powers of this Court for quashing the FIR against the applicants. Hence, I proceed to pass the following order:-
Both the applications are allowed.
ii) FIR No. 10/2026 registered with Police Station Buldhana City, Dist. Buldhana for the offence punishable under Sections 85, 351(2), 351(3) and 3(5) of the BNS and consequent Charge-sheet No.82/2026 and RCC No. 114/2026 pending on the file of 9th JMFC, Buldhana are hereby quashed qua the applicants in both the applications.
iii) Rule is made absolute in the above-said terms.