The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court has quashed criminal proceedings in a matrimonial cruelty case, observing that the allegations made under Section 498-A IPC appeared exaggerated and implausible, particularly those involving a dowry demand of ₹20 lakh and threats of murder allegedly made just two days after marriage.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Sanjay A. Deshmukh passed the order in Criminal Application No. 53 of 2025, filed by Ajay Rajendra Khare and five of his relatives seeking quashing of proceedings arising from FIR No. 291/2024 dated 31.07.2024 registered at Vimantal Police Station, Nanded.
Background
The FIR was lodged by the wife (respondent no.3) of applicant no.1, alleging that she was subjected to dowry harassment and physical cruelty within a short span of their marriage, which took place on 28 January 2024. The allegations included a demand for ₹20,00,000, threats to her life, and ill-treatment by multiple in-laws.
She claimed that within two months of marriage, she was driven out of the matrimonial home. Charges were framed under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 IPC.
Court’s Analysis
The Court found that the complainant had suppressed material facts, including her employment as a medical practitioner in a senior executive role. It also noted discrepancies in the narration of events, including inconsistencies in residence details of the accused.
Referring to the timeline of events and cohabitation between the complainant and her husband, the Court expressed strong doubt over the immediate allegations following the marriage:
“It is hard to believe then that she states that within those two days even the sister-in-law started saying that the informant should be killed by pressing pillow on her face and applicant No.1’s second marriage should be performed.”
“A fact that surprises is that it is stated that within two days only the mother-in-law started demanding amount of Rs.20,00,000/- as dowry.”
The Court found that several accused had no direct role attributed to them. It also noted that certain claims made in the FIR, including prolonged stays of family members at Manmad, were contradicted by documentary evidence, including their place of work and residence.
The investigation was also criticised for being perfunctory. The Court noted that the Investigating Officer did not verify the claims through independent witnesses from the alleged place of occurrence.
“Very interestingly he has drawn a panchnama of spot on 01.04.2024 with the help of two persons from Nanded of the place/house of father of respondent No.3. This shows that nowadays even the police are not taking proper precautions and making appropriate investigation when it comes to offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.”
The Bench described the case as one reflecting misuse of Section 498-A IPC:
“This is the classic example of misuse of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.”
Decision
Invoking its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court quashed the proceedings in Regular Criminal Case No.1306/2024 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nanded, as against the applicants:
The Court concluded that continuation of criminal proceedings in this case would amount to an abuse of process of law.
