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.
The application seeks quashing of First Information Report (FIR) No. 664/2025 registered with Police Station, Wani, Dist. Yavatmal for the offence punishable under Sections 85 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) [corresponding Sections 498A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) respectively] and consequent Charge-sheet No. 263/2025 and RCC No. 293/2025 pending on the file of 2nd Jt. Civil Judge Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate First Class (CJJD & JMFC), Wani, Dist. Yavatmal.
The brief facts of the case, as per the FIR, are as under:-
Applicant no. 2 is the husband of the complainant/non-applicant no.2. Whereas, applicant nos. 1 and 3 are the mother-in-law and the brother-in-law of the complainant respectively. The marriage of the complainant with applicant no. 2 was solemnized on 26.12.2024 at Nagpur. After the marriage, the complainant accompanied her husband for co-habitation to their matrimonial house at Wani. On 10.10.2025, the complainant lodged the complaint with Police Station, Wani that after the marriage, the applicants behaved affectionately and courteously with her for a few days. Thereafter, by initiating quarrel the applicants used to harass and assault her. It is further alleged that applicant no.2 is impotent and he could not establish physical relationship with the complainant. Therefore, on the complaint lodged by the complainant, the aforesaid offences came to be registered against the applicants.
Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants, learned APP appearing for non-applicant no.1/State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of non-applicant no.2.
At the outset, it is pertinent to note that learned counsel for the applicants has not pressed the application in respect of applicant no.2- Sanket Kishor Barapatre. Therefore, application of applicant nos. 1 and 3 is being considered by this Court.
Mr. Bhuibar, learned counsel appearing for the applicants submitted that there is no allegation of cruelty at the hands of applicant nos.1 and 3 in the complaint which is filed under the sweep of Section 85 of the BNS. According to him, the complaint does not depict any harassment towards the complainant on account of demand of dowry. According to him, vague and general allegations are made regarding quarreling and harassment at the hands of applicant nos. 1 and 3 and no specific incident has been stated in the FIR.
To buttress his submission the learned counsel for the applicants seeks to rely upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ajay Rajendra Khare and others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others [Cri. APL No. 53/2025, D/o. 10.06.2025]. Reliance is also placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Chaddha Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [2025 INSC 671] and Ghanshyam Soni Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Anr. [2025 INSC 803]. Thus, according to him, the entire charge-sheet nowhere suggests any cruelty attributed so as to attract Section 85 and 3(5) of the BNS. According to him, the FIR has been lodged against the applicants merely to harass them.
Per contra, the application is strongly opposed by the learned APP appearing for non-applicant no. 1/State as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant/non-applicant no. 2.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the complainant that the complainant was subjected to harassment at the hands of applicant nos.1 and 3. Applicant no.3 took an amount of Rs.15 lakhs from the parents of the complainant towards marriage expenses. According to him, when the complainant went to co-habit with applicant no.2, she got to know that applicant no.2 is impotent. According to him, there are allegations of harassment at the hands of the applicants in the FIR as well as a written complaint which was given by the complainant prior to registration of the FIR. Therefore, according to him, the act of the applicants falls under the ambit of Section 85 of the BNS.
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.
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. Perusal of the FIR as well as the statements of the witnesses do not reveal any material pertaining to demand of dowry at the hands of the applicants. None of the witnesses including the complainant have made a whisper either in the complaint or in her statement that there is any harassment at the hands of the applicants requiring to meet their unlawful demand for any property or valued security or of abuse on account of failure by her to meet any such demand.
My attention is also drawn to the written complaint filed by the complainant prior to lodging the FIR as well as supplementary statement of the complainant and the witnesses in which it is alleged that an amount of Rs.15 lakhs were given to the applicants as marriage expenses. Sofaras, this allegation is concerned, it do not come under the ambit of cruelty as defined under Section 86 of the BNS. Since, the allegation is that, this amount is given towards expense of the marriage which are allegedly to be born by the applicants and the complainant, it can not be termed as an unlawful demand for property or valuable security. Thus, the allegations of the complainant does not fall under Clause (b) of Section 86 of the BNS.
The allegations in the FIR is now to be tested vis-a-vis Clause (a) of Section 86 of the BNS. It has been alleged in the complaint/FIR that few days after the marriage, the applicants started quarreling, abusing and assaulting the complainant. Perusal of the statement as given in the complaint and by the witnesses with regard to quarrel, abusing and beating does not reveal any detail with regard to quarrel, abuse or assault being inflicted so as to deduce that the willful conduct of applicant nos. 1 and 3 is of such nature that has driven the complainant to commit suicide or has likely caused grievous injury or danger to life, limb or health to the complainant.
Only by way of general and sweeping statement without giving any specific details with regard to the date, time, place or incident, the allegation of quarrel, abuse and assault is presented in one sentence alleging in chorus that the applicants used to quarrel, abuse and assault the complainant. Moreover, it is the duty of the prosecution to demonstrate that any unlawful conduct, on the part of the applicants, is of such a nature as is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or to cause grievous injury or danger to her life, limb or health whether mentally or physically. Thus, in light of the above discussion, the allegation does not fall under the purview of Clause (a) of Section 86 of the BNS.
The allegation against applicant no.3 is also that he used to go into the complainant’s bed-room for switching off the light of the hall, the switch of which is in the bedroom of the complainant and he also used to enter the bedroom of the complainant in bare towel due to which she used to face inconvenience. Nevertheless, these acts are wear and tear of daily life and cannot be aggravated in terms of harassment which may lead the complainant to commit suicide. Rather, there is no allegation that all these things being done by applicant no.3 was purposefully with an intent to harass the complainant.
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 (Section 85 of the BNS) 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.
It would be appropriate to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Dara Lakshmi Narayana & Ors. vs. State of Telangana & Anr. [2024 SCC Online SC 3682], wherein in para Nos.20 and 27 it has been observed as under :-
“20.A bare perusal of the FIR shows that the allegations made by respondent No.2 are vague and omnibus. Other than claiming that appellant No.1 harassed her and that appellant Nos.2 to 6 instigated him to do so, respondent No.2 has not provided any specific details or described any particular instance of harassment. She has also not mentioned the time, date, place, or manner in which the alleged harassment occurred. Therefore, the FIR lacks concrete and precise allegations.
. . . . . . . . .
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, appellant Nos.2 to 6, who are the members of the family of appellant No.1 have been living in different cities and have not resided in the matrimonial house of appellant No.1 and respondent No.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.”
Merely making vague and omnibus statement that the present applicants including her husband asked the complainant to bring money and they in chorus harassed the complainant 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 charge-sheet, except the said vague and general statements against the applicants. Sweeping accusations without concrete evidence or particularized allegations, cannot form the basis for a criminal prosecution.
The offset of the above said discussion that the allegation of abuse, assault against the applicants are general in nature. Omnibus and vague allegation have been levelled against them without specifying any details and without any corroborative material. The allegation with respect to demand of Rs.15 lakhs appears to be an already agreed amount for expenditure of the marriage of applicant no.2 and the complainant. Rather, there was no allegation of harassment on this count towards the complainant after marriage. Put up all these together, no ingredients of the offence under Sections 85 and 86 of the BNS are made out against the applicants.
A reference can be made 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 principles of law relating to the exercise of extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the FIR were discussed and it has been held that such power can be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In paragraph 102 of the report, their Lordships laid down the broad principles where such power under Article 226 of the Constitution/Section 482 of the CrPC should be exercised, which are 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 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.
(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.”
The case of the applicants are covered under Clause (1) and (3) of the decision in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra) therefore, a case is made out for exercising the inherent powers of this Court to quash the FIR and consequent charge-sheet against the applicants. Hence, I proceed to pass the following order:-
The application is partly allowed.
ii) The application of applicant no.2-Sanket S/o. Kishor Barapatre is dismissed as not pressed. It is to be noted that the application is not heard on merits with respect to applicant no.2 and the Trial Court shall not influenced by the observations made while deciding the present application.
iii) The application of applicant no.1- Mrs. Manisha Kishor Barapatre and applicant no.3- Utkarsh Kishor Barapatre is allowed.
iv) FIR No. 664/2025 registered with Police Station, Wani, Dist. Yavatmal for the offence punishable under Sections 85 and 3(5) of the BNS and consequent Charge-sheet No. 263/2025 and RCC No. 293/2025 pending on the file of 2nd Jt. CJJD & JMFC, Wani, Dist. Yavatmal are hereby quashed and set aside against qua applicant no. 1-Mrs. Manisha Kishor Barapatre and applicant no.3- Utkarsh Kishor Barapatre.
Rule is made absolute in the above-said terms.