Chetan Gajanan Bhoyar and Others vs State of Maharashtra Thr Pso. Ps. Khadan, Akola and Anr.

¶1

2026:BHC-NAG:3079-DB

Judgment

1

22 apl238.25

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

¶6

CRIMINAL APPLICATION APL NO.238/2025

¶7

Chetan Gajanan Bhoyar, (husband), age: 31 years, occupation: service, r/o Sambhaji Nagar, Gokul Colony, Manora, taluka Manora, district Washim 444 404.

¶8

Gajanan Atmaram Bhoyar, (father-in-law), age: 57 years, occupation: farmer, r/o at Shelgao, taluka Mangrulpir, district Washim – 444 403.

¶9

Maya Gajanan Bhoyar (Mother-in-law) age: 54, occupation: housewife, r/o at Shelgao, taluka Mangrulpir, district Washim – 444403.

¶10

Bhushan Gajanan Bhoyar (Brother-in-law) age: 26 years, occupation: serving in army, presently posted at 426, Field Hospital, r/o c/o 56 APO, Qtr.No.P-203/15, BD Bari MIL Station, 56 APO.

¶11

Shivani Bhushan Bhoyar (Wife of Brotherin-law). Age: 24 years, occupation: housewife. r/o Qtr.No.P-203/15, BD Bari MIL Station, 56 APO.

¶12

Rina Anil Ekade, (Sister-in-law) age: 29 years, occupation: housewife,

.....2/-

Judgment

22 apl238.25

2

r/o Godegaon, post Bhat Umara, Gondegaon, district Washim - 444 505.

¶18

Dhananjay Ajabrao Kakad, (Maternal-uncle uncle of husband of complainant), age: 49 years, occupation: farmer, r/o Sarad Nagar, Shivar, Akola, taluka and district Akola-444 104. ….. Applicants.

¶19

:: V E R S U S ::

¶20

The State of Maharashtra, through the Police Station Officer, Police Station Khadan, Akola, taluka Akola, district Akola.

¶21

Komal Chetan Bhoyar, (complainant) age:30 years, occupation: housewife, r/o c/o Santosh Vishwanath Mate, Moreshwar Complex, Kothari Watika No.3, Malkapur, taluka and district Akola444 004. ….. Non-applicants . ================================ Shri K.P.Mahalle, Counsel for Applicants. Shri N.B.Jawade, APP for the NA No.1/State. None for NA No.2.

¶22

================================ CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J. DATE : 16/02/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

.....3/-

Judgment

22 apl238.25

3

Heard learned counsel for applicants and learned APP

¶29

for non-applicant/State. None appears for non-applicant No.2 (the complainant). Admit . Heard finally by consent.

¶30

By this application, applicants are seeking quashing of FIR in connection with Crime No.99/2025 registered for offences under Sections 498A, 323, 504, and 506 read with 34 of the IPC and consequent proceeding arising out of the same bearing chargesheet No.112/2025 and RCC No.649/2025.

¶31

The crime is registered on the basis of a report lodged by the complainant on allegations that her marriage was performed with applicant No.1 on 23.1.2021 and she is having one daughter from the said wedlock. It is alleged by her that after the marriage, for some days, applicant No.1 treated her well. However, thereafter, he started ill-treating her by taunting her that less dowry is given in the marriage and was abusing her and assaulting her physically. It is

.....4/-

Judgment

22 apl238.25

4

further alleged by her that her in-laws were also telling her that she has brought less dowry in the marriage and they were not respected properly in the marriage and on the instigation of sister also, applicant No.1 was ill-treating her, due to which she was constrained to leave the matrimonial house and lodged the FIR.

¶37

4. Learned counsel for applicants submitted that merely

¶38

because dispute arose between the husband and wife, this FIR came to be lodged. There is no specific allegation even against applicant No.1 as far as ill-treatment is concerned. On the basis of general, vague, and omnibus allegations, applicants are implicated in the alleged offence.

¶39

He has invited my attention towards recital of the FIR

¶40

and submitted that no specific instances are narrated as to the ill-treatment and, therefore, no prima facie is case made out against applicants.

.....5/-

Judgment

22 apl238.25

5

Per contra, learned APP for the State has strongly

¶46

opposed the said contentions on the ground that against the husband, there are specific allegations and the other applicants were instigating applicant No.1 and on that count, there was ill-treatment at the hands of applicant No.1. In view of that, the application deserves to be rejected.

¶47

On hearing both sides and perusing the entire investigation papers, especially recital of the FIR, it reveals that as far as applicant No.1 is concerned, against whom the specific allegations are levelled as to physical and mental harassment.

¶48

As far as applicant Nos.2 to 7 are concerned, against whom general allegations are levelled merely because they are relatives of the husband.

¶49

Mere reference of names of other relatives without

¶50

assigning any specific role or specific instance is not sufficient to attract the offence under Section 498A of the IPC.

.....6/-

Judgment

22 apl238.25

6

In view of that, the application deserves to be allowed

¶56

partly. Hence, I proceed to pass following order:

¶57

ORDER

¶58

(1) The criminal application is allowed partly .

¶59

(2) FIR in connection with Crime No.99/2025 registered for offences under Sections 498A, 323, 504, and 506 read with 34 of the IPC and consequent proceeding arising out of the same bearing chargesheet No.112/2025 and RCC No.649/2025 are hereby quashed and set aside to the extent of applicant Nos.2 to 7.

¶60

(3) The criminal application in respect of applicant No.1 Chetan Gajanan Bhoyar is rejected .

¶61

Application is disposed of .

¶62

( URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J. )

¶63

!! BrWankhede !!

¶64

Signed by: Mr. B. R. Wankhede Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 23/02/2026 18:01:07

¶65

...../-

Chetan Gajanan Bhoyar and Others v. State of Maharashtra Thr Pso. Ps. Khadan, Akola and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chetan Gajanan Bhoyar and Others v. State of Maharashtra Thr Pso. Ps. Khadan, Akola and Anr.

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

Shri. Piyush Sanjay Meshram vs Sau. Prashnnaki W/O Piyush Meshram

Pratibha Prabhakar Dawle vs State of Mharashtra through Ps Hudkeshwar and Anr.

Sau. Shobha W/O Purshottam Dangre and Another vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Its Ps, Shegaon Dist. Buldhana and Another

Mohammad Iqbal S/O Mohammad Ismail Khokar and 7 Others vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Ps Ramdsas Peth Akola and Another

Sunil S/O Rekchandra Khobragade vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. P.S.O., P.S., Jaripatka, Nagpur, Dist. Nagpur and 1 Another

Suresh S/O Pandurang Dhoke vs State of Maharashtra