AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
The applicants seek quashing of the First Information Report (FIR) No.389/2023, dated 28.12.2023, registered with Police Station, Ram Nagar, Gondia for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short the “IPC”), and consequent Chargesheet No.278/2025, dated 08.12.2025, registered as Regular Criminal Case No.757/2025, pending before 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gondia, District Gondia.
Applicant Nos.1 and 2 are the father-in-law and the mother-in-law, whereas applicant No.3 is the brother-in-law of non-applicant No.2/complainant. Marriage of non-applicant No.2 was solemnized on 03.12.2023 with co-accused Shyam Hindocha, who is the son of applicant Nos.1 and 2 and the brother of applicant No.3. After marriage, there was a reception ceremony at Mithapur, Tahsil and District Dwarka, Gujarat on 09.12.2023. On 28.12.2023, non-applicant No.2 lodged a complaint against the applicants and her husband Shyam Hindocha alleging that co-accused Shyam Hindocha initially demanded an amount of Rs.25 Lakhs and thereafter, an amount of Rs.2 Crore whereas, all the applicants also asked non-applicant No.2 to bring money from her parents for co-accused Shyam and thereby, harassed non-applicant No.2. Therefore, on her complaint, the aforesaid offences came to be registered against co-accused Shyam Hindocha and all the applicants.
Learned Counsel for the applicants vehemently submitted that non-applicant No.2 resided with the applicants at her matrimonial house at village Mithapur only for a day and thereafter, left the place along with her husband co-accused Shyam and resided with him at Pune. According to him, there are no allegations of demand of any amount against any of the applicants. The allegations against the applicants are vague and general in nature. By way of omnibus statements, general allegations are made against the applicants without providing any specific details. According to him, all the applicants have been implicated in this case just to harass them. Learned Counsel for the applicants further submitted that the applicants are residing at Mithapur, District Dwarka, Gujarat and non-applicant No.2 is residing at Pune. Therefore, there is no reason for the applicants to demand money to non-applicant No.2. Even if the allegations levelled against the applicants are accepted, no offence whatsoever is made out under Section 498A and 506 of the IPC and therefore, he sought quashing of the FIR and consequent chargesheet against the present applicants.
Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and learned Counsel Mr. Vastani, who appears on behalf of non-applicant No.2 have objected to the application on the ground that the husband of non-applicant No.2/co-accused Shyam demanded Rs.25 Lakhs from non-applicant No.2 immediately after a few days of marriage and asked her to bring the said amount from her parents. It is also contended that applicant Nos.1 and 2 asked non-applicant No.2 to give the amount to co-accused Shyam. Applicant No.3-brother of the co-accused also told her to give the said amount to his brother Shyam and thereby, harassed non-applicant No.2. According to them, there is material against all the applicants in the chargesheet and therefore, they sought rejection of the application.
The FIR indicates that after the marriage ceremony, non-applicant No.2 and co-accused Shyam visited Mithapur for the reception ceremony on 09.12.2023. It has been alleged in the FIR that when they were proceeding from Nagpur to Indore and Indore to Ahmadabad, co-accused Shyam told non-applicant No.2 that he is in need of Rs.25 Lakhs, and asked her to get the said amount from her brother. Thereafter, when they reached at Ahmadabad, co-accused Shyam told non-applicant No.2 that he requires money for purchasing furniture for his flat at Pune. It is also alleged that while they were returning from Mithapur to Ahmadabad, co-accused Shyam again demanded Rs.2 Crore for refunding the loan amount that he has taken from creditors. Thus, the allegations of demand of money are against co-accused Shyam. Whether the alleged acts of the applicants come within the purview of Section 498A of the IPC is the question here.
To answer this question, it will be appropriate to reproduce Section 498A of the IPC, which runs as under :
“498A. 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.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, “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.”
The allegation against applicant No.1 is that when non-applicant No.2 had been to Mithapur, he told her that if the in-laws are rich, valuable things are to be taken from them. The allegation against applicant No.2 is that after marriage, applicant No.2 told to non-applicant No.2 again and again that she belongs to a rich family. The allegation against applicant No.3 is that he also told non-applicant No.2 to provide the amount to co-accused Shyam as she belongs to a rich family. The alleged acts of the applicants do not come under the purview of either clause (a) or clause (b) of the explanation to Section 498A of the IPC. The alleged acts referred above are neither willful conduct on the part of the applicants to drive her to commit suicide, nor any harassment with a view to coerce non-applicant No.2 to meet any unlawful demand for any property and therefore, these do not amount to cruelty. Rather, these allegations do not depict any harassment at the hands of the applicants.
This takes me to the further allegations in the FIR wherein non applicant No. 2 has alleged by way of a single statement that all the applicants and co-accused Shyam started harassing non-applicant No.2 for bringing the amount from her parental house. At the outset, it is to be noted here that co-accused Shyam Hindocha, the husband of non-applicant No.2 is not the applicant here and he has not applied for quashing of FIR in the present application. It is also to be highlighted that non-applicant No.2 resided with the applicants only for one or two days for the purpose of the reception ceremony at Mithapur. Minute perusal of the FIR shows that there is no whisper of any type of harassment attributed to the applicants. Only vague and omnibus statements are made against the applicants in one sentence that the applicants used to harass her for bringing the amount. There are no specific details or instances of harassment. Vague allegations are levelled against the applicants in one sweeping statement without any other corroborative material to support those allegations. It appears that the applicants, being relatives of the husband of non-applicant No.2 are dragged in this case.
It may be mentioned here that in the case of Kahakashan 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 the 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.
Merely making vague and omnibus statements that the present applicants and her husband asked non-applicant No.2 to bring money and they in chorus harassed her mentally and physically without any other corroborating material is not sufficient to initiate criminal proceedings 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 criminal prosecution.
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.”
The present case is one of such cases wherein, all the relatives of the husband are dragged into the matrimonial dispute by making vague and general allegations of harassment without there being specific details of subjecting non-applicant No. 2 to cruelty. In the absence of such material, subjecting these applicants to face criminal trial will be an abuse of the process of Law.
As stated above, there are no allegations against applicant Nos.1 and 2 by virtue of which, it can be said that they treated non-applicant No.2 with cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A of the IPC. Rather, there are no allegations of harassment at all against these two applicants. Whereas, the allegations of harassment against applicant No.3 are vague and general in nature without any supporting material in the entire chargesheet. A sweeping statement is made against applicant No.2/mother-in-law making general allegations that she started harassing non-applicant No.2 for bringing the amount which is not sufficient to initiate the prosecution, particularly, when non-applicant No.2 resided with the applicants only for a day or two for the purpose of the reception ceremony. Therefore, the FIR and consequent chargesheet against the present applicants is nothing but an abuse of the process of law.
In view of the above, a case is made out for exercising the inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to quash the FIR and consequent proceedings. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order :
The Criminal Application is allowed.
FIR No.389/2023, dated 28.12.2023, registered with Police Station, Ram Nagar, Gondia for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short the “IPC”), and consequent Chargesheet No.278/2025, dated 08.12.2025, registered as Regular Criminal Case No.757/2025, pending before 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gondia, District Gondia, are hereby quashed and set aside, qua the applicants only.
The criminal application is disposed of. Rule is made absolute.