Sagar Tarachand Chahande Others v. the State of Maharashtra Thr. Bramhapuri, Tq. Bramhapuri, Dist. Chandrapur and Another

Bombay HC8 Jan 2026APL/1429/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay HC Nagpur Bench, Pravin S. Patil J, 14.01.2026 — APL 1429/2024 allowed; 498-A r/w 34 IPC proceeding (RCC 256/2025 / FIR 286/2024, Bramhapuri) quashed against husband, father-in-law, brother-in-law and maternal aunt on vague, omnibus allegations with no specific role; relied on Kahkashan Kausar (2022) 6 SCC 599 and Preeti Gupta (2010) 7 SCC 667; abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; proceeding RCC No.256/2025 arising out of FIR No.286/2024 against the applicants for the offence punishable under Section 498-A r/w 34 IPC quashed and set aside; no order as to costs. ¶¶31

Sagar Tarachand Chahande Others vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Bramhapuri, Tq. Bramhapuri, Dist. Chandrapur and Another — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal proceeding against the applicants under Section 498-A r/w 34 IPC, founded on allegations that are not specific, is liable to be quashed and set aside.

¶¶17

Court's answer

Perusal of the FIR and investigation statements discloses only vague and omnibus allegations against the applicants; there is no specific date, time and nature of harassment and no precise details; the only repeated allegation is that the husband was in the habit of drinking liquor causing matrimonial discord.

¶¶19

Ratio / Principle

Non-applicant no.2 implicated the husband's relatives without attributing any specific role to them; it appears their names were stated in the complaint just to engross all family members in the criminal offence.

¶¶21

Key takeaways

No offence is made out under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code; the court found it surprising that the complainant, who stated she was residing in the house of the applicants, could make such vague and omnibus allegations against them.ratio¶¶25
The allegations fall short of attracting the offence under Section 498-A IPC; continuation of the proceeding against the applicants would be nothing but an abuse of the process of court, interference of the court was necessary, and the applicants made out a case for interference.ratio¶¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Application (APL) No.1429 of 2024 (Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench; Pravin S. Patil, J.; decided 14.01.2026) — Quashing — Section 498-A r/w 34 IPC — Applicants (husband, father-in-law, brother-in-law and maternal aunt of the complainant) sought quashing of proceeding RCC No.256/2025 arising out of FIR No.286/2024. Held: statements in the FIR and investigation were vague and omnibus, with no specific date, time or nature of harassment and no precise details; the husband's relatives were implicated without any specific role, apparently to engross the whole family in the criminal offence; relying on Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar, (2022) 6 SCC 599 and Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 667, the Court held no offence under Section 498-A IPC was made out and continuation would be an abuse of the process of court. Proceeding quashed and set aside; no order as to costs.

¶1

2026:BHC-NAG:850-DB

¶2

1 928 APL 1429.24

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION [APL] NO.1429 OF 2024

¶6

1.	Shri Sagar s/o Tarachand Chahande A/a 29 years, Occu. Pvt. Service, R/o. Khedmakta, Tah. Bramhapuri, District-Chandrapur (M.S.)
2.	Shri Tarachand s/o Kashiram Chahande A/a 65 years, Occu. N.A. R/o. Khedmakta, Tah. Bramhapuri, District-Chandrapur (M.S.)
3.	Shri Ashutosh s/o Tarachand Chahande A/a 20 years, Occu. Education, R/o. Khedmakta, Tah. Bramhapuri, District-Chandrapur (M.S.)
4.	Smt. Manda w/o Chandrabhan Khobragade A/a 50 years, Occu. Housewife, R/o. Vitthalgaon Potgaon, Tah. Wadsa, District-Gadchiroli. .. Applicants
	..Versus ..
1.	State of Maharashtra, through Police Station Officer, Bramhapuri Police Station, Tah. Bramhapuri, District-Chandrapur.
2.	Smt. Sonali w/o Sagar Chahande A/a 32 years, Occu. Service, Currently r/o Ghorad, Post-Amner Tah. Warud, District-Amravati. ..Non-Applicants

¶7

2 928 APL 1429.24

¶8

Shri S.D. Shukla, Advocate for Applicants. Mrs. Deepa Charlewar, APP for Non-Applicant No.1/State. Shri Naneshwar P. Chaware, Adv. for Non-Applicant No.2.

¶9

CORAM : PRAVIN S. PATIL, J. DATED : 14.01.2026.

¶10

JUDGMENT

¶11

The applicants herein are the husband, father-in-law, brother-in-law and maternal aunt of non-applicant no.2.

¶12

The non-applicant no.2 on 25.5.2024 lodged the police complaint against the present applicants alleging thereby she was mentally and physically harassed and accordingly the offence punishable under Section 498-A r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code is registered against the present applicants.

¶13

During the pendency of the present application, the investigation is completed and chargesheet is also filed in the matter.

¶14

The applicants have challenged the proceeding mainly on the ground that in the complaint as well as the investigation

¶15

which is conducted by the investigation officer, the entire

¶16

3 928 APL 1429.24

¶17

allegations which are levelled are not specific and even if they are taken of their face value they do not disclose the commission of the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code made out in the matter. Hence, according to them, the entire proceeding registered in the matter is liable to be quashed and set aside.

¶18

In support of their submission, the applicants have taken me through the FIR as well as the statements recorded by the investigating officer.

¶19

The bare perusal of the statements shows that the vague and omnibus statements were raised against the present applicants. There is no specific date, time and nature of harassment. No precise details are given in the entire complaint. Only allegation which is repeated in the matter is that applicant/husband was in habit of drinking liquor and, therefore, there was matrimonial discord between them and as a result, the present complaint is filed by the non-applicant no.2.

¶20

4 928 APL 1429.24

¶21

After the perusal of the entire record indicates that the non-applicant no.2 has implicated the relatives of the husband without any specific role attributed to them. It is nowhere disclosed as to how they harassed her. It seems that just to engross all the family members in criminal offence, their names have been stated in complaint.

¶22

In the light of this factual position, the applicants have relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam and others .vs. State of Bihar and others, reported in 2022 6 SCC 599 and Preeti Gupta and another .vs. State of Jharkhand and another, reported in [2010] 7 SCC 667, wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that now a days it is the tendency of the wife of implicating the relatives of the husband on vague allegations in the complaint. However, in such cases, in absence of specific allegation, the relatives of the husband cannot be implicated in matrimonial dispute.

¶23

It is pertinent to note that the marriage between the applicant no.1 and non-applicant no.2 was solemnized on

¶24

5 928 APL 1429.24

¶25

4.2.2023 and complaint was lodged on 25.5.2024. It is further pertinent to note that while lodging the complaint she has specifically stated that she is residing in the house of the applicant/husband. Therefore, it is very surprising how the non-applicant no.2 while residing in the house of the applicants can make this vague and omnibus allegations against the applicants. Therefore, in my opinion, no offence is made out under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code in the matter.

¶26

According to me, the allegations fall short to attract the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and, therefore, continuation of the proceeding against the present applicants will nothing but abuse of process of court and, therefore, to meet the end of justice and to avoid the applicants and his family members to continue the criminal proceeding, the interference of this court is necessary in the matter. Accordingly, in my considered opinion, the applicants have made out a case for interference of this court. Hence, I pass the following order :

¶27

6 928 APL 1429.24

¶28

O R D E R

¶29

(1) The application is allowed.

¶30

(2) The proceeding bearing RCC No.256/2025 arising

¶31

out of FIR No.286/2024 against the present applicants for the offence punishable under Section 498-A r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶32

(3) No order as to costs.

¶33

(Pravin S. Patil, J.)

¶34

Gulande

¶35

Signed by: A.S. GULANDE Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 20/01/2026 14:28:24

Sagar Tarachand Chahande Others v. the State of Maharashtra Thr. Bramhapuri, Tq. Bramhapuri, Dist. Chandrapur and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sagar Tarachand Chahande Others v. the State of Maharashtra Thr. Bramhapuri, Tq. Bramhapuri, Dist. Chandrapur and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Pratima W/O Sangam Nishad vs Shri. Sangam S/O Lalman Nishad

Mrs. Mohini W/O Pankaj Leheriya vs Mr. Pankaj S/O Anil Laheriya

Maulik Yashwantray Joshi and 3 Others vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Ps Hudkeshwar Nagpur and Another

Sadanand S/O Haribhau Bhande vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Kuhi Tah.Kuhi Dist.Nagpur and Another

Mohd.Shabbir Shaikh Aziz (Dead) Thr. Lrs. Mohd. Mohasin Mohd. Shabbir and Others vs the State of Maharashtra, Represented by the Collector, Yavatmal and Other

Mohammed Awis Mohammed Azam and Others vs State of Maharasahtra and Others