##PAGE1##

2025:BHC-NAG:14992-DB

970-apl1623.25.odt 1/4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) No.1623 OF 2025

(Ramkisan s/o. Bhaurao Johare and others Vs. State of Maharashtra, through PSO, PS

Mehkar, Distt. Buldhana and another)

__________________________________________________________________________

Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram,

appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders.

and Registrar's Orders.

Mr. N.R. Raut, Advocate for applicants.

Mrs. Swati Kolhe, APP for non-applicant No.1.

Ms. Naina Dhoke, Advocate for non-applicant No.2.

CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE AND

NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.

DATE : 23 ^rd DECEMBER, 2025.

1. The present application is preferred by the

applicants for quashing of First Information Report in

connection with Crime No.423/2025, registered with Police

Station Mehkar, District Buldhana for the offence punishable

under Sections 498A, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal

Code.

2. The crime is registered on the basis of a report

lodged by the non-applicant No.2 on an allegations that her

marriage with applicant No.1 was performed on 25.12.2010.

After marriage she resumed the co-habitation. She has

begotten two children from the said wedlock. However, she

alleged that after the marriage within 2 to 3 months she was

ill-treated by the applicant No.1 by demanding the amount for

purchasing the plot as well as for constructing the house and

she was subjected by physical and mental harassment at the

hands of applicant No.1. She alleged that the other applicants

970-apl1623.25.odt 2/4

were instigating the applicant No.1 and on their instigation the

applicant No.1 was physically and mentally tortured her. On

the basis of said report Police have registered the crime against

the present applicants.

3. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, who

submitted that as far as allegations are concerned which are

baseless, general and omnibus, merely because dispute is arose

between the husband and wife. He further submitted that the

allegations levelled by the informant are general in nature, no

specific instances are narrated. There is no overact on the part

of the present applicants. In view of that, the application

deserves to be allowed.

4. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for

the non-applicant No.1 and leaned counsel for the non-

applicant No.2 strongly opposed for the same and submitted

that considering the allegations against the applicant No.1 that

he has not only ill-treated her physically and mentally but there

was an unlawful demand on the part of the applicant No.1. In

view of that, the application deserves to be rejected.

5. On hearing both sides and on perusal of the recitals

of the First Information Report it reveals that the marriage took

place between the applicant No.1 and non-applicant No.2 on

25.12.2010. Thereafter, the two issues were there from the

said wedlock and as per the allegations it was the applicant

No.1, who was harassing her by demanding the unlawful

demand. As far as other applicants are concerned, who are the

members of the family only allegations are levelled against

them is that they have instigated the applicant No.1 and they

were ill-treating her by saying that she is not good looking.

970-apl1623.25.odt 3/4

Thus, the allegations against the applicant Nos.2 to 9 appears

to be general, vague and omnibus in nature. Considering the

ingredients which are required to constitute the offence under

Section 498A is concerned, there has to be some overact on the

part of the applicants and willful conduct of the applicants

which is absent in the present case as far as applicant Nos.2

to 9 are concerned. They appears to be implicated merely

because they are the family members of the applicant No.1.

Now, it became a recurring tendency to implicate all the family

members in the offence like 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

6. Considering nature of the allegations levelled

against the applicant Nos.2 to 8 they have made out a case for

quashing of the F