2025:BHC-NAG:14633-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL)NO. 143/2022

1. Laxmi w/o JyotishKumar Gupta,

Aged 28 years, Occ – House Wife, R/o. 133, Maharajganj Road, Pura

Gambhi Shah, Jaunpur, Uttar Pradesh -

U.P. - 222 125

2. Sandeep Kumar s/o Saheblal Gupta, Aged about 32 years, Occ- Constable in UP

Police, Dompur, District – Jaunpur,

Uttar Pradesh – 222 125

... APPLICANTS

...VERSUS…

1. State Of Maharashtra,

Through P.S.O., Kapil Nagar, Nagpur

District - Nagpur

2. Sau. Khushaboo w/o Manish Sahu,

Aged about 29 years, Occ- house wife, R/o. c/o. Lalchand Gupta, Plot No. 03,

Deepak Nagar Chowk, Uppalwadi

Road, Kapil Nagar, Post – Kapil Nagar,

Nagpur

...NON-APPLICANTS

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ms. Smita Waghmare, Advocate for applicants

Ms. Shamsi haider, APP for non-applicant/State

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE AND

NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.

DATED : 16.12.2025 JUDGMENT (PER : NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.)

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

2. This is an application seeking quashing of the First Information Report filed at the behest of the non-applicant no. 2 / first informant for quashing the First Information Report vide Crime No. 427 of 2021 dated 13.10.2021 registered at the non-applicant no. 1 police station for offences punishable under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 and read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.

3. It is the case of the first informant / non-applicant no.2 that she is a legally wedded wife of one Manish Saheblal Sahu the marriage has been solemnized on 11.02.2020. After the marriage she started cohabiting with the husband along with the in-laws. Applicants herein are the sister-in-law and brother-in-law of the first informant. As per the allegations in the First Information Report, the applicants herein along with the husband and other in-

laws, were instigating and troubling the non-applicant no. 2. The said instigation and inconvenience was also coupled with the demand of dowry. On these allegations the First Information Report in question was lodged.

4. We have heard Ms. Smita Waghmare learned counsel for the applicant, as also Ms. Shamsi Haider learned APP for non-applicant/State and nobody appears for the applicant no. 2 though served.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant states that the allegations in the First Information Report are vague and omnibus in nature and no specific role is attributed to any of the applicants to attract the offences as punishable under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code. She states that only general allegations are made and meaningful reading of the First Information Report do not make out any offence against the applicants. She therefore, prays for quashing of the First Information Report in question.

6. Per contra, the learned APP while vehemently opposing the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants states that, the meaningful reading of the First Information Report would spell out the offences punishable under Section 498-A and other relevant provisions.

7. We have carefully considered the First Information Report in question. A conjunctive reading of the said First Information Report would reveals that there are general and omnibus allegations made against the applicants. The only role which is attributed is that the applicants used to instigate the husband of the non-applicant no. 2 who in turn would quarrel and practice mental cruelty on the non- applicant no. 2. The allegations are apart from them being general are omnibus in nature. Section 498-A of the IPC reproduced as under :-

“498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.—Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three