Bombay High Court: In writ petitions challenging an FIR registered under Sections 85, 351(2), 115(2), 3(5), and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’), the Division Bench of Bharati Dangre and Shyam C. Chandak*, JJ., held that continuation of the FIR and consequent chargesheet against the relatives of the husband would amount to an abuse of the process of law. The Court emphasised that the allegations made against the father-in-law and brother-in-law, such as dowry remarks, ignoring the husband’s extramarital affair, and advising the wife to tolerate abuse, is not “cruelty” within the meaning of Section 498A of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), and therefore quashed the proceedings qua the petitioners.
Background:
The complainant married in June 2014 and thereafter resided with her husband and his family. It was alleged that she was induced to hand over her gold and silver ornaments, which were later not returned. She further alleged that her father-in-law polluted her husband’s mind against her, leading to abuse and assault, and that her brother-in-law taunted her to tolerate the beating of her husband. The complainant also stated that when she questioned her husband about his extramarital affair, she was abused and assaulted, and her grievances were met with allegations of insufficient dowry.
The petitioners contended that the disputes were purely personal between the complainant and her husband, and that they were unnecessarily implicated with an ulterior motive. It was argued that even if the prosecution case was accepted as it stood, no offence was made out against them. The State and the complainant opposed the petitions, submitting that the FIR and witness statements disclosed cruelty and misappropriation, and that whether the petitioners committed the offences was a matter of trial not to be adjudicated under Article 226 of the Constitution or Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’).
Analysis and Decision:
The Court carefully examined the material on record and emphasised that only two allegations were made against the petitioners: one, that the father-in-law alleged harassment and expressed displeasure about not receiving sufficient dowry or a car and two, that the brother-in-law taunted the complainant to tolerate the beating. The Court observed that when these allegations are considered apposite Section 498A IPC, they do not constitute “cruelty” as defined in the explanation appended to the provision.
The Court noted the observations of the Supreme Court in Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar, (2022) 6 SCC 599, that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations in matrimonial disputes, if left unchecked, would result in misuse of the process of law. It was highlighted that the Supreme Court by way of its judgments has warned against proceeding against relatives and in-laws when no prima facie case is made out. The Court further referred to K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana, (2018) 14 SCC 452, where it was held that courts should be careful in proceeding against distant relatives unless specific instances of their involvement are made out.
The Court emphasised that unfounded criminal charges and long drawn prosecution have serious consequences, including mental trauma, humiliation, financial loss, and stigmatization of reputation. It was observed that reckless imputations can result in serious repercussions on career progression and future pursuits. Therefore, it is necessary to invoke jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) and Article 226 of the Constitution to protect the character and reputation of relatives unnecessarily implicated.
Accordingly, the Court held that the FIR had been lodged primarily on account of a personal dispute with the husband, while the relatives were implicated with an ulterior motive. It was observed that continuation of proceedings against them would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
The Court, therefore, quashed the FIR along with the consequent charge sheet qua the petitioners, thereby disposing of the writ petitions.
[Amrik Singh Saini v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 5663, decided on 09-12-2025]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Shyam C. Chandak
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners: Pritish Chatterjee with Nitish Banka
For the Respondents: Supriya Kak, APP, Radhika Mundada
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
Buy Constitution of India HERE
