2025:BHC-NAG:14533-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 1191 OF 2024 APPLICANTS : 1. Digambar Namdeo Narwade, (Father-in-law) Age 74 years, Occu : Retired. (Mother-in-law) 2. Padmini Digambar Narwade,

Age 59 years, Occ : Household.

(Brother-in-law) 3. Vinod Digambar Narwade,

Age 37 years, Occ : Lawyer.

All Applicants R/o Ganpati Lane, Ward No.15, Mehkar, Tq. Mehkar,

District : Buldana.

V E R S U S

NON-APPLICANTS :1. State of Maharashtra

Through P. S. O. P. S. Malegaon,

District : Washim.

2. Rupali w/o Mrugendr Narwade,

Age 38 years, Occ : Household,

R/o Gadge Nagar, Malegaon,

Dist. Washim.

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

Shri S. B. Gandhe, Advocate for applicants.

Shri Nikhil Joshi, Additional Public Prosecutor for Non-applicant No.1.

Shri S. V. Sirpurkar, Advocate for Non-applicant No.2.

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

CORAM: URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE &

NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.

DATED : 16/12/2025.

ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER : NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.)

1. Heard. Admit. Heard finally with the consent of learned

counsel appearing for the parties.

2. This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the First

Information Report bearing Crime No.246/2024 dated 30/05/2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The applicants further pray for setting aside the charge sheet bearing No.116/2024 filed on 19/07/2024 and the consequent Regular Criminal Case No.145/2024.

3. As per the allegations in the charge sheet, the non- applicant No.2 / first informant lodged a report with the non- applicant No.1 stating that she was married to the accused No.1 namely; Mrugendra Narwade, on 18/06/2008. After the said marriage, she was residing in her matrimonial house and was treated well for some days. Thereafter, as per the averments in the first informant report, she was assaulted and insulted on the ground that the applicants were not treated properly during the marriage. It is further stated that present applicants have instigated the main accused, who is husband of the non-applicant No.2 and he used to harass the victim and cause mental cruelty. Based on these allegations, the First Information Report in question is lodged.

4. We have heard Shri S. B. Gandhe, learned counsel for the applicants and Shri Nikhil Joshi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants states that even if the allegations in the First Information Report and the material collected by the Investigating Agency is perused, no offence is made out as far as the applicants are concerned. He further submits that even if allegations are taken at their face value, no offence muchless as contemplated under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the applicants. He, therefore, prays that the First Information Report and the consequent criminal proceedings be quashed as far as the applicants are concerned.

6. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor while opposing the contentions advanced states that offences made out against the applicants are sufficient to face the criminal trial.

7. Learned counsel for the Non-applicant No.2 while supporting learned Additional Public Prosecutor states that there are specific allegations against the applicants. While taking us to the First Information Report in question, he states that the present applicants had harassed the non-applicant No.2 and therefore, the matter would be of evidence necessitating the criminal trial.

8. We have perused the material on record and also appreciated the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties.

9. As can be seen from the First Information Report in question, the applicants are the father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law of the non-applicant No.2. Only vague and gener