Specificity of allegations is essential to sustain charges under Section 498-A; vague claims against family members may result in quashing of FIR to prevent misuse.

JUDGMENT :

URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE , J.

Heard. Admit. Heard finally with the consent of learned Counsel for both the parties.

2. Both the applications are filed by the applicants for quashing of the First Information Report in connection with Crime No. 0284/2025, registered under Section 498 -A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The applicant in application No. 732 of 2025 is the husband of the informant, whereas the applicant No.1 in application No. 640/2025 is the mother-in-law, applicant No. 2 is the brother-in- law, applicant No. 3 is the wife of the applicant No. 2, and applicant No. 4 is the sister-in-law. And applicant No.5 is the husband of applicant No.4.

4. The crime is registered on the basis of a report lodged by the informant on an allegation that her marriage was performed with Rajkiran Vishnu Yewale on 07/02/2010, and after marriage, she resumed the cohabitation at the house of the present applicants. She has handed over all her ‘stridhan’ in the custody of the present applicants. Initially, for some days she was treated well, but thereafter, she was ill-treated by the present applicants for one or the other reason. She alleged that after marriage, though her husband was serving at Yavatmal, but he kept her at Deurwada along with other applicants, and told her that she had to reside along with them, and she had to take care of his parents. Thereafter, she was pregnant, but he had not taken care of her, and she was ill-treated by demanding the amount, as well as for various reasons by all the applicants. On the basis of the said report, the Police have registered the crime against the present applicants.

5. Heard learned Counsel for the applicants who submitted that as the notice for the dissolution of marriage was issued to the informant, and therefore, she lodged the false First Information Report with baseless and general allegations. He submitted that even accepting the allegations as it is, no prima facie case is made out against the present applicants, as this First Information Report came to be lodged with the consultation of the lawyer and by taking the legal assistance. He submitted that considering the details given in the First Information Report, it is apparent that with the legal advice, this First Information Report came to be lodged, only to give a counterblast to the proceedings filed by the husband. He invited our attention towards the notice issued by the husband and the proceedings which are filed under the Domestic Violence Act, and submitted that even accepting the allegations as it is, no prima facie case is made out, and thus, the applications deserve to be allowed.

6. In support of his contention, he place reliance on Achin Gupta Vs. State of Haryana and another , (2025) 3 SCC 756 .

7. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the said contentions and submitted that there are specific allegations as far as the applicants are concerned by giving specific instances. Therefore, the prima facie case is made out against the present applicants. He invited our attention towards the recitals of the First Information Report and submitted that, after marriage, she was kept along with other applicants by the husband. She was not taken to resume the cohabitation along with him, though he was serving in Yavatmal. Thereafter, she was ill-treated by demanding the amount. She has specifically narrated the dates when the demand was made by the applicants. As far as the brother-in-law and husband are concerned, there is a specific allegation that on 19/01/2024, they both assaulted her by tearing her clo