Bombay High Court
SHUBHAM MADHUKAR KAJALE AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
- Disposal
- APPLICATION ALLOWED
- Bench
- S G CHAPALGAONKAR
Holding
The Court held that the FIR and charge‑sheet constitute an over‑implication and misuse of Section 498‑A IPC, lacking specific allegations against the husband’s relatives, and therefore allowed the criminal application for quashment.
Summary
The applicants, comprising the husband, his parents and sisters‑in‑law, sought quashment of FIR No.992/2024 filed on a complaint by the wife alleging dowry demands, assault and cruelty under Sections 498‑A, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 and 406 IPC. The court examined the FIR and found the allegations against the husband’s relatives to be omnibus, unspecific and lacking any prima facie material, noting that the wife had filed a criminal complaint against the mother‑in‑law just two days before the FIR and that the alleged assaults were reported only after the divorce notice. Citing Supreme Court pronouncements on the misuse of Section 498‑A, the court held that the FIR amounted to over‑implication and abuse of the penal provision. Consequently, the criminal application for quashment was allowed, resulting in the FIR being set aside.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR under Sections 498‑A, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 and 406 IPC is maintainable against the husband and his relatives given the lack of specific allegations.
- Whether there is a prima facie case to proceed against the husband’s parents and sisters‑in‑law under Section 498‑A.
- Whether the FIR constitutes a misuse of the dowry harassment provision and an over‑implication of relatives.
- Whether the criminal application for quashment of the FIR should be granted.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 323, 34, 406, 498-A, 504, 506
Subjects
- dowry harassment
- Section 498-A misuse
- criminal application
- quashment of FIR
- matrimonial dispute
- over‑implication
- false complaint
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:14839-DB
(1) appln-440-2025.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.440 OF 2025
1. Shubham s/o. Madhukar Kajale (Husband)
Age- 28 Yrs., Occu.: Private Service,
2. Madhukar s/o. Pandurang Kajale (father-in-law)
Age- 59 Yrs., Occu.: Business,
3. Sujata w/o. Madhukar Kajale (Mother-in-law)
Age-56 years, Occ: Household,
Applicant Nos.1 to 3 permanent
R/o. Pandurang Krupa,
Sarai peth, Junnar, Tal-Junnar, Dist. Pune.
4. Prerna d/o. Madhukar Kajale (Sister-in-law)
Age-33 years, Occ: Lawyer
R/o. Brhaman Budhwarpeth,
5. Poonam w/o. Nikhil Mundlik (Sister-in-law)
Age-34 years, Occ: Business,
C-202, Aradhya Heights,
Kolhe mala Road, Narayangaon,
Tal. Junnar, dist. Pune ..Applicants
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through the Investigation Officer
/ Officer In charge of
Police Station Rahuri, Tq. Rahuri,
Dist. Ahmednagar
2. Komal w/o. Shubham Kajale
Age: 26 years, Occu.: Business & Job of Share marketing,
C/o. Balkrushna Tulsidas Bokand,
R/o. Dhanore, Tq. Rahuri, Dist. Ahmednagar ..Respondents
(Orig. Informant)
…
Mr. B. R. Kedar, Advocate for the Applicants.
Mr. K. N. Lokhande, APP for Respondent No.1.
Mrs. Manjusha Jagtap, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
…
CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
(2) appln-440-2025.odt
RESERVED ON : 12th FEBRUARY, 2026.
PRONOUNCED ON : 08th APRIL, 2026.
JUDGMENT:-
1. The applicants seeks quashment of FIR in Crime
No.992/2024 registered with Rahuri Police Station, Dist.
Ahmednagar for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323,
504, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code as well as consequential
proceeding in RCC No.575/2024 pending before Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Rahuri.
2. The investigation was set in motion on the basis of
information given by respondent no.2 alleging that on 16.07.2021
she married with applicant no.1 as per Hindu rites and customs.
After marriage, she started residing with her in-laws. She was
treated well for a month after marriage. She is blessed with son
out of matrimonial relationship. Thereafter, her husband started
demanding Rs.2,00,000/- for purchase of car. He was further
raising demand of 140 grams of gold left out as part of dowry.
When informant apprised about huge expenses made by her
parents, accused persons abused her and assaulted by fist and kick
blows. She was not given food and tortured mentally and
physically.
3. On 25.04.2024 while she was in jewelry shop, all accused
persons assaulted her in pursuance to their demand and
(3) appln-440-2025.odt
threatened to kill. Since 26.04.2024 she is residing with her
parents. She disclosed incident to them. Thereafter, present
complaint is lodged. The investigation progressed in pursuance to
aforesaid information and charge-sheet is filed. Section 406 of
Indian Penal Code is added on the basis of supplementary
statement of informant that accused persons have withhold jewelry
gifted by her parents at marriage.
4. Mr. Kedar, learned Advocate appearing for applicants
submits that allegations in FIR are per se false. The respondent
no.2 was not interested in cohabiting with applicant no.1-husband.
She used to humiliate and insult in-laws. On 25.04.2024 on
complaint of applicant no.3/mother-in-law, N.C. for offences
punishable under Section 323, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code
was registered against respondent no.2. The applicant no.3 had
suffered injuries due to assault by respondent no.2. The applicant
no.1 has filed proceeding for divorce against respondent no.2 in
Court of Civil Judge Senior Division at Rajgurunagar. The notice
of such proceeding was issued to respondent no.2. Immediately
thereafter false complaint has been lodged.
5. Per contra, Mr. Lokhande, learned APP appearing for
respondent-State and Mrs. Jagtap, learned Advocate appearing for
respondent no.2 would submit that there is triable material against
(4) appln-440-2025.odt
applicants. The contents of FIR attracts ingredients of alleged
offence.
6. Having considered submissions advanced by learned
Advocates appearing for respective parties and on perusal of
material tendered into service, it is evident that on information
given by respondent no.2, Crime No.992/2024 was registered
against applicants. The applicant no.1 is husband, applicant nos.2
and 3 are father and mother-in-law and applicant nos.4 and 5 are
sisters-in-law. Perusal of FIR further suggests that allegations are
omnibus and general without specification of overt act against
individual accused person. In first part of FIR allegation is made
that husband demanded Rs.2,00,000/- for purchase of four wheeler
and also asked to hand over 140 grams of gold. There are general
allegations against all applicants that they abused and beaten her
by fist and kick blows. Similar allegations are repeated vide
incident dated 25.04.2024. As rightly pointed out by Mr. Kedar two
days before registration of offence, NC has been lodged on
complaint of applicant no.3 against respondent no.2. Similarly,
applicant no.1 has filed proceeding for divorce. The notice of which
is served upon respondent no.2. Perusal of statement of witnesses
shows that since 26.04.2024, respondent no.2 is residing with her
parents. The averments in statements of witnesses are
stereotyped, omnibus and unspecific. The applicant no.5 who is
(5) appln-440-2025.odt
sister-in-law of respondent no.2 is residing at Pune, applicant nos.1
to 3 were residing with respondent no.2 in house at Saraipeth,
Taluka Junnar, applicant no.4 is an Advocate by profession and
residing separately since before marriage of applicant no.1 and
respondent no.2. The FIR nowhere clarifies about presence of
applicant nos.3 and 5 on the date of so called incident.
7. At this stage, reference can be given to observations made by
the Supreme Court in case of Preeti Gupta and Another and
Another Vs. State of Jharkhand and Another1, wherein Apex
Court observed in paragraph nos.30, 32 and 34 as under :-
“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.”
8. In yet another judgment in case of Kahkashan Kausar @
Sonam and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others 2, the
1 (2010) 7 SCC 667.
2 (2022) 6 SCC 599.
(6) appln-440-2025.odt
Supreme Court after taking stock of various earlier decisions in the
subject matter, observed in paragraph no.17 as under:
“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.”
9. Similarly, in case of Sushil Kumar Sharma vs. Union of
India and others3, the Supreme Court observed in paragraph
no.19 as under :-
“19. The object of the provision is prevention of the dowry
meance. But as has been rightly contended by the petitioner
many instances have come to light where the complaints are
not bonafide and have filed with obligue motive. In such
cases acquittal of the accused does not in all cases wipe out
the ignomy suffered during and prior to trial. Sometimes
adverse media coverage adds to the misery. The question,
therefore, is what remedial measures can be taken to
prevent abuse of the well-intentioned provision. Merely
because the provision is constitutional and intra vires, does
not give a licence to unscrupulous persons to wreck personal
vendetta or unleash harassment. It may, therefore, become
necessary for the legislature to find out ways how the
makers of frivolous complaints or allegations can be
appropriately dealt with. Till then the Courts have to take
care of the situation within the existing frame work. As
noted the object is to strike at the roots of dowry menace.
But by misuse of the provision a new legal terrorism can be
unleashed. The provision is intended to be used a shield
and not assassins' weapon. If cry of "wolf" is made too often
as a prank assistance and protection may not be available
when the actual "wolf" appears. There is no question of
investigating agency and Courts casually dealing with the
allegations. They cannot follow any strait jacket formula in
3 (2005) 6 SCC 281.
(7) appln-440-2025.odt
the matters relating to dowry tortures, deaths and cruelty.
It cannot be lost sight of that ultimate objective of every
legal system is to arrive at truth, punish the guilty and
protect the innocent. There is no scope for any pre-
conceived notion or view. It is strenuously argued by the
petitioner that the investigating agencies and the courts
start with the presumption that the accused persons are
guilty and that the complainant is speaking the truth. This
is too wide available and generalized statement. Certain
statutory presumption are drawn which again are
reputable. It is to be noted that the role of the investigating
agencies and the courts is that of watch dog and not of a
bloodhound. It should be their effort to see that in innocent
person is not made to suffer on account of unfounded,
baseless and malicious allegations. It is equally
indisputable that in many cases no direct evidence is
available and the courts have to act on circumstantial
evidence. While dealing with such cases, the law laid down
relating to circumstantial evidence has to be kept in view.”
10. In light of aforesaid exposition of law if contents of FIR and
charge-sheet are considered this Court finds that this is case of
over implication and misuse of penal provision under Section 498-A
of Indian Penal Code. The respondent no.2 acted in revengeful
manner only when she received notice of divorce proceeding filed by
husband. The record indicate that although allegations of assault
by all accused persons are made in FIR at two occasions, those are
clearly afterthought. She had not lodged any report thereof to
police station. Hence, Criminal Application deserves to be allowed.
11. In result, Criminal Application is allowed in terms of prayer
Clause (B).
(S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
Devendra/March-2026
Checking your session…