Judgment · High Court

Heard.

ADMIT. Taken up for final disposal with the consentof learned counsel for the parties.

The present application is preferred by the applicantsunder Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023(for short, ‘BNS’) for quashing of the First Information Report inconnection with crime No.997/2024 registered at Police StationAwadhutwadi District Yavatmal for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short,‘IPC’) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961and consequent proceeding arising out of same bearing RCCNo.56/2025 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate FirstClass, Yavatmal. 37 apl 1400.25.odt..odt 3 4. The applicant No.1 is the husband and otherapplicants are his nearest relatives are arrayed as an accused inconnection with the aforesaid crime on the basis of report lodgedby non-applicant No.2- Pallavi Vikrant Bhagat on an allegationthat her marriage was performed with applicant No.1 on24.01.2023. After marriage she resumed the cohabitation of theapplicant No.1. Her husband was addicted by consuming liquorand was demanding divorce from her. On that count, he was illtreating her physically as well as mentally and other applicantsalso instigating him to ill treat her. On the basis of same, policehave registered the crime against them.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants whosubmitted that as far as allegation levelled against the presentapplicants is concerned which is general and omnibus in nature. Merely because some dispute arose between husband and wife allthe applicants are implicated in the alleged offence. As far asapplicant Nos.2 to 5 are concerned, they are implicated merelybecause they are relatives of husband. No specific instances orspecific allegation are levelled against the applicants. As far as theapplicant Nos.4 and 5 are concerned, they are not residing along 37 apl 1400.25.odt..odt 4 with the applicant No.1 and the informant. Merely becauseapplicant No.4 is sister she is implicated though she is marriedlong back and residing at her matrimonial house.

Per contra, learned APP strongly opposed for thesame and submitted that considering the allegations levelledagainst the present applicants that they all in furtherance of theircommon intention insisted the non-applicant No.2 to give divorceto applicant No.1 and on that count she was ill treated by theapplicants, therefore, prima-facie case is made out against theapplicants and hence, application deserves to be rejected.

Despite service of notice none appears for the non-applicant No.2.

After hearing both the sides and on perusal of theentire investigation papers it reveals that matrimonial disputearose between husband and wife, applicant No.1 has issued thenotice to non-applicant No.2 and thereafter the FIR came to belodged. As far as allegation levelled against applicant No.1 isconcerned which is substantiated by the statement of the 37 apl 1400.25.odt..odt 5 informant as well as the other statements of the witnesses. Thus, prima-facie case is made out against the applicant No.1. As far asapplicant Nos.2 to 5 are concerned, it is apparent that they areimplicated in the alleged offence merely because they are relativesof the husband.

Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code prescribespunishment where a woman is subjected to cruelty by herhusband or his relatives. The offence is punishable withimprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and alsoprovides for fine. The Explanation appended to the provisiondefines “cruelty” in two parts. Clauses (a) refers to wilful conductwhich is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman tocommit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to her life, limbor health, whether mental or physical. Clause (b) expands thescope of the term to include harassment with a view to coercingthe woman or her relatives to meet any unlawful demand forproperty or valuable security, or on account of failure to meet suchdemand. 37 apl 1400.25.odt..odt 6 10. In the light of the requirement of the offenceadmittedly no wilful conduct is narrated by the non-applicantNo.2 as far as applicant Nos.2 to 5 are concerned. Considering theobservations of Hon’ble Apex Court that now there is a tendencyto implicate all family members in the such types of offence. Theapplicant Nos.2 to 5 appear to be implicated in the allegedoffence. In view of that application deserves to be allowed. 12. In view of that I proceed to pass following the order:- ORDER(i)The Criminal Application is partly allowed. (ii)First Information Report in connection withcrime No.997/2024 registered at Police Station AwadhutwadiDistrict Yavatmal for the offences punishable under Sections498-A, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and consequentproceeding arising out of same bearing RCC No.56/2025pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yavatmal are hereby quashed and set aside to the extent ofapplicant Nos.2 to 5 Deeliprao s/o Ganpat Bhagat, Vanmala 37 apl 1400.25.odt..odt 7 w/o Deeliprao Bhagat, Vanmala w/o Deeliprao Bhagat, Mrs. Sujata w/o Arun Bhawre and Arun s/o RamchandraBhawre. (iii) The prayer of applicant No.1 for quashing of FIR is hereby rejected. 13. Criminal Application stands disposed of in the above terms. ( URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.) manisha