Back
2026 Supreme(Bom) 612
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, J.
Najeem Mahamd Sayad – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra – Respondent
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 4349 OF 2022
Decided On : 08-05-2026
For the Petitioner: Mr. Jitendra Pathade
For the Respondent: Mr. Amit A. Palkar, APP Adv. Poonampal i/b Mr. Sachin Hande
In matrimonial disputes, courts must strictly scrutinize criminal complaints against extended family members. Vague and omnibus allegations lacking specific attributed acts of cruelty or criminal breach of trust warrant the exercise of inherent powers to quash such proceedings to prevent the abuse of the legal process.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 498A, 406, 323, 504, 506 and 34 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Matrimonial dispute - Quashing of criminal proceedings - Allegations of cruelty and criminal breach of trust - Practice of implicating all family members in domestic discord - Necessity of specific allegations against relatives to sustain criminal prosecution. (Paras 9, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20)
(B) Quashing of proceedings - Inherent powers of High Court - Prevention of abuse of process of law - Where allegations in FIR are vague, general, and omnibus in nature without specific acts of involvement, such proceedings warrant being quashed to prevent unnecessary harassment and misuse of the legal process. (Paras 9.1, 9.2, 9.10, 9.11, 22)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners sought the quashing of an FIR registered for various offences under the penal code arising out of a matrimonial dispute. The complainant alleged that her husband and his relatives subjected her to physical and mental cruelty and committed criminal breach of trust regarding her personal property. The petition was filed by the husband and his relatives. The husband did not press for relief, while the remaining relatives argued that the allegations against them were vague, general, and made solely due to their relationship with the husband.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the allegations against the relatives were of a general nature and lacked specific details regarding time, place, or the actual role played in the commission of the alleged offences. The court noted that in domestic disputes, there is a recurring tendency to implicate entire families, which necessitates careful judicial scrutiny to ensure that the process of law is not weaponized. The court found that the allegations regarding criminal breach of trust were internally contradictory and failed to establish a prima facie case.
Issues: The main issue was whether the criminal proceedings against the relatives of the husband should be quashed when the allegations leveled in the complaint are general, vague, and lack specific acts of cruelty or criminal breach of trust.
Ratio Decidendi: Criminal proceedings arising from matrimonial disputes demand a high degree of caution. Relatives cannot be roped into criminal trials based on omnibus allegations without any specific instance or active involvement substantiated by credible material. To avoid the abuse of the legal process, the court must quash cases where the complaint fails to constitute a prima facie offence, thereby protecting innocent relatives from the trauma of trial in the absence of genuine incriminating evidence.
Result: Petition allowed as against the relatives, quashing the FIR and chargesheet against them; proceedings continued as against the husband.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. case introduction and procedural background regarding matrimonial dispute mediation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. detailed factual allegations of cruelty and harassment within marriage. (Para 5) |
| 3. contentions regarding the validity of fir against in-laws. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. legal precedents and definitions concerning section 498a and 406 offences. (Para 9) |
| 5. judicial guidelines for interpreting cruelty in matrimonial criminal proceedings. (Para 13 , 14) |
| 6. evaluation of evidence against relatives in matrimonial criminal cases. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 7. quashing criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of legal process. (Para 22 , 23 , 24) |
JUDGMENT :
RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, J.
1) The Petitioners, by the present Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, have approached this Court, with a prayer that, FIR bearing No.157/2022 dated 1st July 2022, registered with Kamothe Police Station for the offences punishable under sections 498A, 406, 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the consequent chargesheet bearing No. 21 of 2023 and Regular Criminal Case No. 190 of 2023 pending before the 4th Jt. Civil Judge Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Panvel alongwith with all the further proceedings therein be quashed and set aside.
2) Heard Mr. Jitendra Pathade, learned Advocate for the Petitioner, Mr. Amit A. Palkar, learned APP for the Respondent–State and Adv. Poonampal i/b Mr. Sachin Hande for Respondent No.2. Perused the entire record including the affidavit in reply, filed by the Respondent No.2.
3) As the present Petition arises out of a matrimonial dispute/discord, this Court, by an Order dated 19th March 2025, referred the parties for mediation. The report of the learned Mediator would indicate that, though various mediation meetings were conducted, the mediation unfortunately could not succeed.
4) Respondent No.2 is the Original Complainant. Petitioner No.1 is the husband of Respondent No.2. Petitioner No.2 is the mother-in-law, Petitioner No.3 is the father in law, Petitioner No.4 is the brother in law and Petitioner No.5 is the sister in law, of Respondent No.2.
5) The Respondent No.2, in the FIR has alleged as under:-
5.1) That, the marriage between Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2, took place on 23rd January 2022. That, Respondent No.2 and her family were aware and informed that, Petitioner No. 1 was a divorcee. That, the family of Respondent No.2 incurred all the marriage expenses. That, in the marriage, the father of Respondent No.2, gave gold ornaments and other articles, totally valued at Rs. 4,39,800/- to Respondent No.2. That, after the marriage, Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 started taunting the Respondent No.2, in respect of the gift articles got by Respondent No.2 during the wedding. That, on the day of the reception, the Petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 told the Respondent No.2, to inform her father and arrange for a photographer for the reception function. That, when Respondent No.2 refused, the parents of the Respondent No. 2 were insulted for not arranging the photographer. That, according to the traditions, the Respondent No.2 was to go to her parental house on the first Thursday after the marriage. That, as Petitioner No.1 was at home on 27th January 2022, Petitioner No.2 did not allow Respondent No.2 to go to her parental house. That, when Respondent No.2 complained/raised an objection, Petitioner No.1 husband assaulted her and directed her listen to the Petitioner No.2. That, when Respondent No.2 complained of the said assault, to Petitioner Nos.2 and 3, she was orally abused by them.
5.2) That, Petitioner No.1 had taken custody of the mobile of the Respondent No.2 as he suspected that, Respondent No.2 was having an affair with somebody. That, the mobile of Respondent No.2, was operated by Petitioner No.1. That, Petitioner No.1, directed Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, not to send Respondent No.2 to her p
