YOGESH CHINTAMAN DEORE AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

2026:BHC-AUG:18437-DB
                                                                         921-appln-1628-2025.odt
                                                     (1)


                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                        BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                               CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1628 OF 2025

                                   Yogesh Chintaman Deore And Others
                                                  VERSUS
                                  The State Of Maharashtra And Another
                                                      ...
                     Advocate for Applicant : Mr. L.S. Mahajan h/f Mr. Desale Nilesh N.
                               APP for Respondent/State : Mr. S.D. Ghayal
                         Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. Kale Vijay Bhanudas
                                                      ...
                                              CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.

                                                DATED : APRIL 18, 2026

                PER COURT :-

                1.             The applicants seek quashment of FIR No.599 of 2023

                dated 03.07.2023 registered with Shevgaon Police Station, Shevgaon,

                District Ahmednagar for offences punishable under Sections 498-A,

                323, 504, 506 of Indian Penal Code.

                2.             The investigation was set in motion on the basis of

                information given by respondent no.2. In nutshell, she alleges that on

                16.06.2020, she married with accused Yogesh during Covid time.

                After marriage, she resided at matrimonial home. She had trifle

                dispute with his husband. On 10.07.2021, she gave birth to a child at

                maternal home. On 28.11.2021, she resumed her stay at matrimonial

                home. After that, in-laws started demanding Rs.3 lakh for purchase

                of appliances under pretext that at marriage, such gifts were not

                given. Thereafter, she resided for some period with husband in a

                rented room. Since 19.03.2023, she is residing with her parents and
                Mujaheed//
                                                                  921-appln-1628-2025.odt
                                           (2)


then lodged report.             Perusal of FIR shows that except one last

allegation that in-laws raised demand of Rs.3 lakh to purchase

appliances, there is absolutely nothing to depict that applicants have

tortured respondent no.2 in pursuance to demand of money or they

committed such act that would drive her to commit suicide.                         The

allegations in FIR are omnibus.              No particulars of incident of ill-

treatment are discernible from contents of FIR.

3.                  In light of aforesaid observations, reference needs to be

given to exposition of law by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of

Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam and Others Vs. State of Bihar and

Others reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599 particularly para 17 which reads

thus :

             “17.   The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that
             this court has at numerous instances expressed concern over
             the misuse of section 498A IPC and the increased tendency of
             implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes,
             without analysing the long term ramifications of a trial on the
             complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from
             the said judgments that false implication by way of general
             omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial
             dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process
             of law. Therefore, this court by way of its judgments has
             warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and in-
             laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out
             against them.”

4.                  Reference can also be given to observations of another

judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Preeti Gupta and
Mujaheed//
                                                                 921-appln-1628-2025.odt
                                           (3)


Another Vs. State of Jharkhand and Another reported in (2010) 7

SCC 667, particularly paragraph nos.30, 32 and 34, which read thus :

             “30. It is a matter of common knowledge that
             unfortunately matrimonial litigation is rapidly increasing in
             our country. All the courts in our country including this Court
             are flooded with matrimonial cases. This clearly
             demonstrates discontent and unrest in the family life of a
             large number of people of the society.
             32.   It is a matter of common experience that most of these
             complaints under section 498-A IPC are filed in the heat of
             the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations.
             We come across a large number of such complaints which are
             not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the
             same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of
             dowry harassment are also a matter of serious concern.
             34.    Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the
             implications and consequ ences are not properly visualized by
             the complainant that such complaint can lead to
             insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the
             complainant, accused and his close relations.”

5.                 Reference can also be given to observations of another

judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Geeta Mehrotra and

Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another reported in (2012) 10

SCC 741, particularly paragraph no.25, which read thus :

             “25. However, we deem it appropriate to add by way of
             caution that we may not be misunderstood so as to infer that
             even if there are allegations of overt act indicating the
             complicity of the members of the family named in the FIR in a
             given case, cognizance would be unjustified but what we wish
             to emphasize by highlighting is that, if the FIR as it stands
             does not disclose specific allegation against accused more so
             against the co-accused specially in a matter arising out of
             matrimonial bickering, it would be clear abuse of the legal
             and judicial process to mechanically send the named accused
             in the FIR to undergo the trial unless of course the FIR
             discloses specific allegations which would persuade the court
             to take cognizance of the offence alleged against the relatives
Mujaheed//
                                                                 921-appln-1628-2025.odt
                                           (4)

             of the main accused who are prima facie not found to have
             indulged in physical and mental torture of the complainant-
             wife. It is the well settled principle laid down in cases too
             numerous to mention, that if the FIR did not disclose the
             commission of an offence, the court would be justified in
             quashing the proceedings preventing the abuse of the process
             of law. Simultaneously, the courts are expected to adopt a
             cautious approach in matters of quashing specially in cases of
             matrimonial dispute whether the FIR in fact discloses
             commission of an offence by the relatives of the principal
             accused or the FIR prima facie discloses a case of over-
             implication by involving the entire family of the accused at
             the instance of the complainant, who is out to settle her scores
             arising out of the teething problem or skirmish of domestic
             bickering while settling down in her new matrimonial
             surrounding.”

6.                 In light of aforesaid exposition of law, if charge sheet is

perused, except stereotype statements of witness without specific

attribution nothing can be found against any of applicants to attract

alleged offence.           This Court finds that it is a dispute between

respondent no.2 and her husband. All members from husband’s family

are implicated as accused. Apparently, this is a classic example of

over implication and misuse of Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code.

In this backdrop, applying principles laid down by Hon’ble Supreme

Cout in case of State of Haryana and Others Vs. Ch. Bhajanlal and

Others reported in AIR 1992 SC 604, case is made out to exercise

inherent powers.

7.                 In result, application is allowed in terms of prayer clause

(B) and (B-1).


                                                 (S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.)
Mujaheed//