The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against the mother, aunt, and sister of a man accused of cruelty and dowry harassment by his wife, holding that the allegations against them were “general and omnibus.” The Court, however, rejected the husband’s plea, stating that a prima facie case was made out against him based on specific allegations.
The division bench of Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke and Justice Nandesh S. Deshpande delivered the judgment on October 8, 2025, in a criminal application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). The applicants sought to quash an FIR and a subsequent charge sheet filed against them for offences under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 406, and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Background of the Case
The case originated from a complaint filed by a woman against her husband and his relatives. The complainant alleged that after her marriage, she was not treated well because the wedding was not conducted according to her in-laws’ status. She further claimed that her husband, at the instigation of his family members, demanded Rs. 50 lakh from her parents to expand his business. Based on her report dated April 9, 2019, the Mankapur Police Station in Nagpur registered an FIR, which led to the filing of a charge sheet.
Arguments of the Parties
The husband and his family argued that no prima facie case was established against them. Their counsel contended that the FIR was lodged as a “counterblast” to the ‘Talaq’ pronounced by the husband nearly two months before the complaint was filed.
It was argued that the allegations against the husband’s relatives were general in nature, without any specific instances of ill-treatment being narrated. A key point raised was that the husband’s sister had been studying in the U.S.A. even before the marriage took place, making her involvement in the alleged harassment impossible. The applicants’ counsel also challenged the legality of the husband’s arrest, alleging non-compliance with the procedure under Section 41 of the Cr.P.C.
The State and the complainant opposed the application, submitting that there were specific allegations against the husband. They defended the arrest, stating that the husband had appeared at the police station suo motu and was arrested after due process was followed. They argued that any procedural non-compliance would, at most, be a ground for bail and not for quashing the entire proceeding.
Court’s Analysis and Findings
The High Court analyzed the allegations separately for the husband and his relatives.
On Allegations Against Relatives:
The bench observed that “general and omnibus allegations are levelled against them.” It noted the fact that one of the relatives was studying abroad. The Court cited several Supreme Court judgments, including Preeti Gupta vs State of Jharkhand and Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam vs The State of Bihar, expressing concern over the misuse of Section 498A IPC.
The Court also referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others vs. State of Telangana and another, which noted:
“It has become a recurring tendency to implicate every member of the husband’s family, irrespective of their role or actual involvement, merely because a dispute has arisen between the spouses… allowing the prosecution to proceed would amount to an abuse of the process of law.”
In light of these precedents, the bench concluded that it was a “fit case to exercise our jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.” as far as the husband’s relatives were concerned.
On Allegations Against the Husband:
For the husband, the Court found that “admittedly, there is specific allegations and specific instances are narrated by the informant and therefore, at this stage, prima facie case is made out against the applicant No.1.”
On the Legality of Arrest:
Regarding the challenge to the husband’s arrest, the Court examined the station diary entry and found that the applicant-husband had appeared suo motu before the Investigating Officer, who then recorded the reasons in writing before making the arrest. The Court concluded that the procedure had been followed and the contention that the arrest was invalid was “not sustainable.”
Final Decision
The High Court partly allowed the criminal application. The judgment ordered:
- The charge sheet and all consequent proceedings are quashed and set aside to the extent of the husband’s mother, aunt, and sister.
- The application in respect of the husband is rejected. The criminal proceedings against him will continue.
