Bombay HC : Wives Often Treat Police Complaint as Panacea to Settle Scores | Quashes Dowry Case Against In-Laws Over Vague Allegations
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Division Bench of Justice Anil S. Kilor and Justice Pravin S. Patil quashed criminal proceedings initiated under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against certain co-accused family members. The Bench directed that the Regular Criminal Case pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Washim, be set aside insofar as it concerned these relatives of the complainant's husband. However, the court declined to interfere in the proceedings against the complainant’s husband, stating that allegations against him warranted further trial.
The court allowed the application in part, stating that the allegations made against the other family members were vague and devoid of specific details, and did not meet the threshold necessary to prosecute them under the invoked penal provisions. The directive makes clear the necessity for concrete allegations with specific references to time, place, and manner of offence to sustain criminal charges, particularly in matrimonial disputes where the court observed a tendency to rope in all family members.
The matter arose from Criminal Application (APL) No. 1565 of 2023, filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The applicants sought the quashing of Regular Criminal Case No. 330 of 2023, which was pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. 1, Washim. The criminal case originated from Crime No. 0251 of 2023 and was based on charge-sheet No. 74 of 2023. The offences alleged included violations under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
According to the prosecution, the complainant, identified as Non-applicant No. 2, filed a police report dated 30th August 2023, alleging that after her marriage with Applicant No. 1 on 2nd June 2014, she faced mental and physical cruelty from all applicants. She stated that she was insulted with derogatory remarks, including being called the daughter of a beggar, and was ill-treated for bringing insufficient dowry. The resulting First Information Report (FIR) led to the criminal prosecution of the applicants.
The applicants contested these claims on the grounds that the allegations were rooted in ongoing matrimonial discord between Applicant No. 1 and Non-applicant No. 2. It was submitted that a divorce petition (HMP No. 125/2022) had already been filed by Applicant No. 1 on 29th June 2022 before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mehkar, District Buldhana. The applicants also stated that on 13th June 2022, Applicant No. 1 had lodged a missing person complaint regarding Non-applicant No. 2 at Police Station Sakharkheda, Buldhana.
The applicants contended that the complainant had left the marital home without informing anyone and was located only with police assistance. They claimed that the allegations were unfounded and were lodged purely to settle personal scores in the context of the divorce proceedings. Based on these facts, the applicants urged the court to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them.
The learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the application, asserting that all applicants were found involved in the alleged offence during the course of investigation, and therefore, it was premature to quash the proceedings at that stage. Non-applicant No. 2 also supported the prosecution’s position, arguing that the statements recorded and documents available on record established the applicants’ active involvement in the alleged offences.
The Division Bench carefully examined the records and submissions. The court noted that, "It is clear from record that Applicant No.1 on 29.06.2022 filed a divorce proceeding against Non-applicant No.2 bearing HMP No.125/2022, pending on the file of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mehkar, District Buldhana." It was also recorded that, "on 13.06.2022, Applicant No.1 lodged missing complaint of Non-applicant No.2 at Police Station Sakharkheda, District Buldhana."
The Bench observed that the complainant’s main grievance, as outlined in the FIR and her statements, was primarily against Applicant No. 1. The judgment recorded, "She has specifically stated that her husband was doubting her character and out of that she was mercilessly beaten by him." The court acknowledged the existence of serious matrimonial disputes and ongoing divorce proceedings as indicative of a long-standing conflict.
Regarding the co-accused relatives, the Bench noted, "The allegation against Applicant Nos.2 to 8 are of general nature namely they used to utter insulting language against her and never respected her as a daughter-in-law and further instigated her husband to cause more harassment to her." However, the judgment pointed out the absence of any specific instances: "no details are given such as time, date, place and the nature of harassment."
The court remarked on a broader trend in matrimonial cases: "It is noticed that now a days in the proceedings arising out of matrimonial discord, there is tendency of wife to implicate the husband and his family members in the web of crime." It was stated that complaints in such cases are often used "as the only panacea to teach lesson to the family members of the husband."
Further, the Bench recorded: "only out of ulterior motive to settled personal score wife makes generalized and sweeping accusation unsupported by concrete evidence. As a result, the family members of husband has to face the agony of criminal trial, when no prima facie case is made out against them." The court stated the requirement of specificity in criminal complaints, stating: "In the present case, there are no specific allegation disclosing date, time and place or manner in which alleged harassment meted out at the hands of relatives of family members."
In its final determination, the High Court issued the following directions:
"Criminal application is partly allowed."
"Criminal application is hereby rejected in respect of Applicant No.1."
"Regular Criminal Case No. 330 of 2023 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.1, Washim arising out of Crime No. 0251 of 2023 and charge-sheet No. 74 of 2023 for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act is hereby quashed and set aside against the applicant no.2 Devidas S/o Shankar Aware, applicant no.3 Kamlabai W/o Devidas Aware, applicant no.4 Ranjana W/o Devidas Aware, applicant no. 5 Satish S/o Devidas Aware, applicant no. 6 Babita W/o Shantiram Thorat, applicant no. 7 Shantiram S/o Waman Thorat and applicant no. 8 Sandhya W/o Ashok Kamble."
The Bench declared, "Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms. No order as to costs."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Shri Anup S. Dhore, Advocate
For the Respondents: Shri G. S. Umale, APP for the State; Ms. Pragya Jaiswal, Advocate for Non-applicant No. 2
Case Title: XXX vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2025: BHC-NAG:5298-DB
Case Number: Criminal Application (APL) No. 1565 of 2023
Bench: Justice Anil S. Kilor and Justice Pravin S. Patil
[Read/Download order]
