Bombay High Court
NILESH SUDHAKARRAO PAWAR AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
- Bench
- S G CHAPALGAONKAR
Holding
No prima facie case exists against the husband’s relatives; their prosecution is quashed while the case may proceed against the husband.
Summary
The husband and his relatives (father‑in‑law, mother‑in‑law, brother‑in‑law and sister‑in‑law) applied to quash FIR No.313 of 2025 filed by the wife alleging cruelty and illegal dowry demand under Sections 85 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The court observed that the FIR and charge sheet specifically targeted the husband, with no particularised allegations or prima facie material against the other family members. Citing Supreme Court precedents emphasizing the need for specific allegations against each accused in matrimonial disputes, the court held that the prosecution of the relatives would be an abuse of process. Consequently, the application was allowed to the extent of quashing the prosecution against the father‑in‑law, mother‑in‑law, brother‑in‑law and sister‑in‑law, while allowing the case to continue against the husband. The court also directed payment of remuneration to the appointed counsel for the wife.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR under Sections 85 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 can be sustained against the husband’s relatives in the absence of specific allegations of their active participation.
- Whether continuation of prosecution against the relatives amounts to an abuse of the legal process.
- Whether the court has inherent power to quash the FIR for the relatives while permitting prosecution against the husband.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 3(5), 85
- Hindu Marriage Act — s. 13(1)(a)
Subjects
- criminal procedure
- quashment of FIR
- domestic violence
- dowry harassment
- family liability
- abuse of process
- matrimonial dispute
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:24116-DB
appln-3008-2025.odt
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3008 OF 2025
1. Nilesh Sudhakarrao Pawar
Age: 35 Years, Occupation: Service, (HUSBAND)
2. Sudhakar Janrao Pawar
Age: 60 Years, Occupation: Agriculturist, (FATHER IN LAW)
3. Shilabai Sudhakar Pawar
Age: 55 Years, Occupation: Household, (MOTHER IN LAW)
4. Mangesh Sudhakar Pawar
Age: 37 Years, Occupation: Agriculturist, (BROTHER IN LAW)
5. Pranita Mangesh Pawar
Age: 31 Years, Occupation: Household, (SISTER IN LAW)
1 to 5 R/o : At Post Dongakini
Taluka Malegaon,
District Washim. ..Applicants
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Police Inspector,
Police Station – Mantha,
District Jalna.
2. Madhuri Nilesh Pawar,
Age: 28 years, Occu: Household,
R/o. C/o. Sureshrao Mahadevrao More,
Devthana (Usvat), Taluka Mantha,
District Jalna. ..Respondents
…
Mr. G.D. Jain, Advocate for Applicants.
Mr. S.K. Shirse, APP for Respondent/State.
Ms. Pooja Apache, Advocate for Respondent No.2 (Appointed).
...
CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
DATED : JUNE 12, 2026
FINAL ORDER :-
1. The applicants seek quashment of FIR No.313 of 2025
dated 01.06.2025 registered with Police Station Mantha, District
appln-3008-2025.odt
(2)
Jalna for offences punishable under Sections 85 and 3(5) of
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
2. On 14.08.2025, at first hearing of application, after
disinclination shown by this Court to grant any relief to applicant
no.1, application came to be dismissed as withdrawn as against
applicant no.1 and notices were issued only for reliefs claimed on
behalf of applicant nos.2 to 5.
3. The investigation was set in motion on the basis of
information given by respondent no.2 alleging that on 28.06.2016,
she married with applicant no.1. Thereafter, she resided at her
matrimonial home. The couple is blessed with a son and daughter. It
is alleged that after marriage, she was treated well for 2-3 months.
Thereafter ill-treatment started finding faults with her conduct. The
second part of allegation is against conduct of husband. The
omnibus allegation is employed against applicants that they were
supporting illegal demand of her husband and made to starve her in
pursuance to such demand. The investigation progressed on
registration of offence and finally, charge sheet came to be filed.
4. The careful reading of FIR shows that grievance of
respondent no.2 is against her husband. Although, allegations of
demand and cruelty are commonly made against all accused persons,
there are no particulars of their overt acts whereby ingredients of
appln-3008-2025.odt
(3)
offence under Section 85 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 can be
made out.
5. In light of aforesaid backdrop, reference can be given to
observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Preeti Gupta and
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 consequences 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.”
6. Reference can also be given to observations of another
judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Arti Mehta and
Others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others reported in 2026
SCC OnLine SC 933, particularly paragraph no.43, which reads thus :
“43. However, while safeguarding the rights and dignity of
victims of domestic violence remains of paramount
importance, courts are simultaneously required to ensure
appln-3008-2025.odt
(4)
that the rigours of criminal law are not indiscriminately
extended to every member of the family without a clear
factual foundation. In prosecutions arising out of
matrimonial disputes, the allegations against each accused
must be specific, distinct and supported by prima facie
material indicating active involvement in the alleged acts of
cruelty, harassment or unlawful demand of dowry. Mere
allegations that family members “supported” the husband,
failed to intervene, or advised the complainant to adjust in
the matrimonial relationship, without anything further,
would not ipso facto attract criminal liability. There may
indeed be situations where certain relatives remain passive
spectators or fail to come to the aid of the complainant;
however, such conduct, though morally questionable,
cannot automatically be elevated to the status of criminal
culpability unless the surrounding circumstances clearly
disclose their active complicity or participation in the
alleged offences.”
7. Reference can also be given to observations of another
judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Dara Lakshmi
Narayana and Others Vs. State of Telangana and Another reported in
2025 3 SCC 735, particularly paragraph nos.27 and 30, which reads
thus :
“27. A mere reference to the names of family members in a
criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without
specific allegations indicating their active involvement should
be nipped in the bud. It is a well-recognised fact, borne out of
judicial experience, that there is often a tendency to implicate
all the members of the husband’s family when domestic
disputes arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such generalised
and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence
or particularised allegations cannot form the basis for criminal
prosecution. Courts must exercise caution in such cases to
prevent misuse of legal provisions and the legal process and
avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent family members.”
30. The inclusion of Section 498A of the IPC by way of an
amendment was intended to curb cruelty inflicted on a
woman by her husband and his family, ensuring swift
intervention by the State. However, in recent years, as there
have been a notable rise in matrimonial disputes across the
country, accompanied by growing discord and tension within
appln-3008-2025.odt
(5)
the institution of marriage, consequently, there has been a
growing tendency to misuse provisions like Section 498A of
the IPC as a tool for unleashing personal vendetta against the
husband and his family by a wife. Making vague and
generalised allegations during matrimonial conflicts, if not
scrutinized, will lead to the misuse of legal processes and an
encouragement for use of arm twisting tactics by a wife
and/or her family. Sometimes, recourse is taken to invoke
Section 498A of the IPC against the husband and his family in
order to seek compliance with the unreasonable demands of a
wife. Consequently, this Court has, time and again, cautioned
against prosecuting the husband and his family in the absence
of a clear prima facie case against them.”
8. In light of aforesaid exposition of law, if contents of
charge sheet are perused, it can be observed that no offence can be
made out against applicant nos.2 to 5. As rightly pointed out by Mr.
Jain. On 10.09.2024, applicant no.1 filed Marriage Petition No.236
of 2024 against respondent no.2 seeking decree of divorce under
Section 13(1)(a) of Hindu Marriage Act. Present FIR has been
lodged on 01.06.2025 which appears to be reaction of husband’s
petition. In this backdrop, this Court finds that no case can be made
out against applicant nos.2 to 5 for continuation of their prosecution
on the basis of contents of FIR or material in charge sheet. In result,
further prosecution as against applicant nos.2 to 5 would be abuse of
process of law. Hence, case is made out to exercise inherent powers
of this Court. Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (B) to
the extent of applicant nos.2 to 5.
9. The prosecution may continue as against applicant no.1.
appln-3008-2025.odt
(6)
10. The Secretary, High Court Legal Services Sub-
Committee, Aurangabad is directed to pay remunaration of
appointed counsel for respondent no.2, as per schedule.
(S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.)
Mujaheed//
Checking your session…