Bombay High Court: An application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) was filed by Applicant 1 seeking quashment of an FIR lodged against him and his family members alleging mental and physical cruelty along with dowry related accusations invoking Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. A Division Bench of Anil S. Kilor and Pravin S. Patil*, JJ., observed that the allegations made against the applicant’s family member were general in nature, lacking any specific details to disclose claims of harassment and the only specific accusations pertained to the husband. The Court thus partly allowed the criminal application by quashing and setting aside the case pending against Applicants 2 to 8 and rejecting the application in respect to Applicant 1.
Background:
As per a police report dated 30-8-2023, Non-applicant 2 alleged that after her marriage on 2-6-2014 with Applicant 1, she was subjected to mental and physical cruelty at the instance of the applicants. She was insulted by being told that she was a daughter of a beggar and that no one liked her and she was given ill treatment for bringing less dowry.
The applicants challenged the registration of offences made against them on the grounds that there was a matrimonial discord between Applicant 1 and Non-applicant 2, since a divorce petition was already pending. Also, in the year 2022, Non-applicant 2 left the house without intimation. However, the applicants by taking help of the police, searched her out, which shows the allegation made against them are false, since the police complaint lodged against them is only with the intention to settle her personal score.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court while examining the records, referred to a divorce proceeding against Non-applicant 2 dated 29-6-2022, where serious allegations were raised against her, showing a dispute between Non-applicant 2 and Applicant 1 since then. While going through the FIR and her statement, her main grievance was against Applicant 1, as she had specifically mentioned how Applicant 1 was doubting her character and how out of that she was mercilessly beaten by him. The Court opined that the said fact suggested that there was a serious dispute between Applicant 1 and Non-applicant 2, which gave rise to a reason to believe the allegations made against Applicant 1.
The Cout further observed that the allegations levelled against Applicants 2 to 8 were of a general nature. Non-applicant 2 had stated that they used insulting language, failed to treat her with respect as a daughter-in-law, and instigated Applicant 1 to subject her to further harassment. The Court opined that however, no specific details such as time, place and the nature of harassment were provided to substantiate the claims.
The Court opined that in cases arising from matrimonial discord, there was a growing tendency of wife to implicate not just the husband but also his family members with generalised and sweeping accusations. Such allegations often lack concrete evidence and were used to settle personal score, causing undue hardships to family members despite no prima facie case being made out against them.
The Court held that since there were no specific allegations disclosing the date, time and manner in which alleged harassment was inflicted by the relatives or family members, no offences under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act were attracted against Applicants 2 to 8. The criminal application was partly allowed, by quashing and setting aside the case pending against Applicants 2 to 8 and rejecting the application in respect to Applicant 1.
The Court further held that since the allegations were specifically directed against Applicant 1, his criminal application for quashing the FIR was rejected.
[X v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Application (APL) No. 1565 of 2023, decided on 9-6-2025]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Pravin S. Patil
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Applicants: Anup S. Dhore, Advocate
For the Non-applicant 1/State: G.S. Umale, APP
For the Non-applicant 2: Pragya Jaiswal, Advocate
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
