Partly allowed¶31

Pratik Sunil Mahant v. State of Maharashtra Thr Pso, Ps Gittikhadan Nagpur

Bombay HC4 Mar 2026APL/1581/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR; Section 528 BNSS 2023; Sections 85, 351(2), 115(2), 352, 3(5) BNS 2023; matrimonial cruelty allegations; general, omnibus and vague allegations against relatives of husband; no wilful conduct; prima facie case against husband; Crime No. 605/2025 P.S. Gittikhadan Nagpur; Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench; application partly allowed; Urmila Joshi Phalke, J.

What did the court decide?

First Information Report in Crime No. 605/2025 quashed and set aside to the extent of Applicant Nos. 2 to 4; prayer of Applicant No.1 (husband) for quashing rejected. ¶31

Pratik Sunil Mahant vs State of Maharashtra Thr Pso, Ps… — Dowry and Cruelty | Bombay HC (2026)

¶1

2026:BHC-NAG:3716-DB

¶2

1 52.APL.1581-2025.JUDGMENT.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 1581 OF 2025

¶5

1.	Shri. Pratik Sunil Mahant, (Husband) Age 32 years, Occ: IT Employee,
	R/o Mohadi (Dhotra), Post Kharsoli, Tal. Narkhed, Dist. Nagpur.
2.	Shri. Vilas Sunil Mahant, (Brother-in- law)
	Age 38 years, Occ: Business at Pune, R/o Wakad, Pune.
3.	Smt. Sunita Sunil Mahant, (Mother- in-law) Age 59 years, Occ Household,
	R/o Mohdi Dhotra, Tal. Narkhed,
	Dist. Nagpur.
4.	Sau. Pratiksha Vilas Mahant, (Sister- in-law)
	Age 32 years, Occ: Private Job,
	R/o Wakad, Pune.	APPLICANTS
	Versus
1.	The State of Maharashtra, Thr. Police Station Gittikhadan,
	Tq. Nagpur, Dist. Nagpur.
2.	Sau. Bhagyashri W/o. Pratik Mahant, Aged about 29 years, Occ: Housewife,
	R/o. Plot No.26 B, Rathod Lay-out, Anant Nagar, Gittikhadan, Nagpur.	NON-APPLICANTS

¶6

2 52.APL.1581-2025.JUDGMENT.odt

¶7

¶8

Mr. A.P. Deshmukh, Advocate for the Applicants. Mr. N.H. Joshi, APP for the Non-applicant No.1/State. Mr. N.S. Jadhao, Advocate for the Non-applicant No.2.

¶9

¶10

CORAM : URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J. DATED : 04^th MARCH, 2026.

¶11

ORAL JUDGMENT :-

¶12

Heard.

¶13

ADMIT. Heard finally by the consent of learned

¶14

Counsel for the respective parties.

¶15

The reply filed by the learned Counsel for the Non-applicant No.2, is taken on record.

¶16

The present Application is preferred by the Applicants who are the husband and nearest relatives of the Non-applicant No.2 under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 for quashing of the First Information Report in connection with Crime No.605/2025 registered with Police Station Gittikhadan, District Nagpur for

¶17

3 52.APL.1581-2025.JUDGMENT.odt

¶18

the offence punishable under Sections 85, 351(2), 115(2), 352 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

¶19

The crime is registered on the basis of a report lodged by the Non-applicant No.2 on an allegation that her marriage was performed with the Applicant No.1 on 24.04.2022. After marriage she resumed cohabitation but she was ill-treated by the present Applicants for bringing the amount from her parents and thereafter she started residing alongwith the Applicant No.1 at her father’s house, wherein also she was ill-treated by the Applicant No.1. It is alleged that, other Applicants were instigating her husband and on their instigation he was physically and mentally torturing her. On the basis of the said report Police have registered the crime against the present Applicants.

¶20

Heard learned Counsel for the Applicants, who submitted that the Applicant No.1 was residing alongwith the Non-applicant No.2 at her parents house, therefore the allegations levelled against the present Applicants appears to be false, merely because some dispute arose between the husband and wife. He submitted that, the story narrated by the

¶21

4 52.APL.1581-2025.JUDGMENT.odt

¶22

Non-applicant No.2 itself improbable and unacceptable when the Applicant No.1 was residing at her parents house. As far as the other Applicants are concerned, they were residing at their respective house, and therefore, there was no opportunity or occasion for them to visit the parents house of the Non-applicant No.2 and ill-treat her. Merely because they are the relatives of the husband of the Non-applicant No.2 they are implicated in the alleged offence on the basis of general, baseless and vague allegations. In view of that, the Application deserves to be allowed.

¶23

Per contra, learned APP and learned Counsel for the Non-applicant No.2 strongly opposed the said contention on the ground that, she was subjected for physical as well as mental harassment by suspecting her character. She has specifically narrated the incident as to the torture by her husband at her matrimonial house as well as at her parents house, and therefore, the Application deserves to be rejected.

¶24

After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the entire recitals of the FIR it reveals that, the marriage took place on 24.04.2022 and thereafter she resumed cohabitation at the

¶25

5 52.APL.1581-2025.JUDGMENT.odt

¶26

house of the present Applicants. It is alleged that, her husband was insisting her to bring the money from her parents house and thereafter they started residing at her parents house but she was subjected for the harassment by suspecting her character. The entire allegations are levelled against the Applicant No.1/husband. As far as the Applicant Nos. 2 to 4 are concerned, general, omnibus and baseless allegations are levelled against them. Considering the entire recitals of the FIR, as far as the Applicant No.1 is concerned, prima facie case is made out against him as specific allegations are levelled against him but the other Applicants merely because they are the relatives of the husband, they are implicated on the basis of general, omnibus and vague allegations and no wilful conduct is narrated on their part, and therefore, no prima facie case is made out against them. In view of that, the Application deserves to be allowed partly. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order.

¶27

O R D E R

¶28

i. Criminal Application is partly allowed .

¶29

ii. The prayer of the Applicant No.1/Pratik Sunil Mahant, for quashing of the FIR, is hereby rejected.

¶30

6 52.APL.1581-2025.JUDGMENT.odt

¶31

iii. The First Information Report in connection with Crime No. 605/2025 registered with Police Station Gittikhadan, District Nagpur for the offence punishable under Sections 85, 351(2), 115(2), 352 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, are hereby quashed and set aside to the extent of Applicant Nos. 2 to 4.

¶32

9 . Pending application/s, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.

¶33

(URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.)

¶34

S.D.Bhimte

¶35

Signed by: Mr.S.D.Bhimte Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 06/03/2026 10:25:02

Pratik Sunil Mahant v. State of Maharashtra Thr Pso, Ps Gittikhadan Nagpur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pratik Sunil Mahant v. State of Maharashtra Thr Pso, Ps Gittikhadan Nagpur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Samiulla Rematulla Khan vs State of Maharashtra through Pso Ps Shivaji Nagar

Bhushan Sadashiv Lakhekar and Others. vs State of Maharashtra Thr Police Station Umrekhed

Ashwini Mulchand Naik vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Pso Ps Shivaji Nagar Tah Khamgaon Dist Buldhana

Sunil Pudlikrao Boke vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Pso Ps Desaiganj Dist Gadchiroli

Ashok S/O Jankiram Kaldate vs State of Maha Th Pso, Ps Channi and Anr.

Milind Namdev Rathod and Others. vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Pso Ps Pusad Yavatmal