Ravindra Pandurangji Nagpure vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Pso Ps Wardha Tah and Dist Wardha and Anr.

¶1

2026:BHC-NAG:2258-DB

Judgment

1

23 APL1877.25

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

¶6

CRIMINAL APPLICATION APL NO.1877/2025

¶7

Shri Ravindra Pandurangji Nagpure, aged about 48 years, occupation: businessman.

¶8

Shri Prashant Pandurangji Nagpure, aged about 45 years, occupation: service, No.1 and 2 r/o Gharkul Hardware, Mahilashram, Sevagram Road, Wardha, taluka and district Wardha.

¶9

Sau.Ranjana Vinod Chaudhary, aged about 55 years, occupation: service.

¶10

Shri Vinod Madhavrao Chaudhary, aged about 61 years, occupation retired, Nos.3 and 4 r/o Sainagar, Beside Sharma Academy, Wardha, Taluka and district Wardha. ….. Applicants.

¶11

:: V E R S U S ::

¶12

State of Maharashtra, through Police Station Officer, Police Station, Wardha, tahsil and district Wardha.

¶13

Sau.Shilpa Ravindra Nagpure, aged about 40 years, occupation: household, r/o c/o Shri Pandurangji Hiwanj,

.....2/-

Judgment

2

23 APL1877.25

Ganeshnagar, ward No.3, Boregaon . (Meghe), taluka and district Wardha. ….. Non-applicants

¶19

==============================

¶20

Shri S.N.Singh, Counsel for the Applicants. Shri Nikhil Joshi, APP for Non-applicant No.1/State. Shri M.S.Dubey, Counsel for Non-applicant No.2.

¶21

==============================

¶22

CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J. DATE : 03/02/2026

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that

¶25

he is not pressing the application as far as applicant No.1 is concerned and, therefore, the present application in respect of applicant No.1 is disposed of as not pressed .

¶26

Heard learned counsel Shri S.N.Singh for the applicants, learned APP Shri Nikhil Joshi for the State, and learned counsel Shri M.S.Dubey for the non-applicant No.2 (the complainant). Admit . Heard finally by consent.

.....3/-

Judgment

23 APL1877.25

3

By this application, the applicants are seeking quashing of FIR in connection with Crime No.431/2024 registered for offence under Section 498-A read with 34 of the IPC and consequent proceeding arising out of the same bearing RCC No.576/2024 pending before learned JMFC at Wardha.

¶32

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the FIR came to be lodged after 18 years of a long matrimonial life of the complainant. He submitted that as far as the allegations against applicant Nos.2 to 4 are concerned, the same are general and vague in nature. The dispute arose between the husband and the complainant and, therefore, the FIR came to be lodged. He submitted that even accepting the allegations as it is, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the applicants are involved in the offence. In view of that, the application deserves to be allowed.

.....4/-

Judgment

23 APL1877.25

4

Per contra, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the complainant have strongly opposed the said contentions and submitted that in view of allegations levelled against the applicant Nos.2 to 4, the application deserves to be rejected.

¶38

As far as applicant Nos.2 to 4 are concerned, recital of the FIR and investigation papers show that, admittedly, merely because they are relatives of the husband of the complainant, they are implicated in the alleged offence on the basis of vague and omnibus allegation. No specific instances or no specific dates are mentioned, as far as their role is concerned. Even, no specific role is attributed to show their willful conduct to attract the offence.

¶39

Now, it is well settled that mere reference of the

¶40

names of relatives without assigning any specific role or

.....5/-

Judgment

23 APL1877.25

5

specific act would not be sufficient to attract the offence under Section 498-A of the IPC.

¶46

In view of the above settled law and in view of the

¶47

fact that the applicant Nos.2 to 4 are involved in the alleged offence only on the basis of vague and general allegations, the application deserves to be partly allowed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass following order:

¶48

ORDER

¶49

(1) The criminal application is partly allowed .

¶50

(2) The FIR in connection with Crime No.431/2024 registered for offence under Section 498-A read with 34 of the IPC and consequent proceeding arising out of the same bearing RCC No.576/2024 pending before learned JMFC at Wardha are hereby quashed and set aside to the extent of present applicant Nos.2 to 4.

.....6/-

6

Judgment

23 APL1877.25

(3) The criminal application in respect of applicant No.1

¶56

Shri Ravindra Pandurangji Nagpure is hereby disposed of as not pressed .