Vandana Dnyaneshwar Thavkar vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso Rajapet Amravati City Tq. and Dist.Amravati and Another

State of Maharashtra, Through Police station Officer, Police Station, Rajapeth, Amravati City, Tq. And Dist. Amravati 2. Payal Vipin Kamble, Aged: 27 years, Occ: Private Job, R/o C/o Rameshrao Tale, House No.87, Postal Colony, Sainagar, Amravati. ... NON-APPLICANTS --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Shri S.M. Golhar, Advocate for applicants Shri A.M. Ghogre, APP for non-applicant No.1/State Ms Shreya H. Bhagat, Advocate (appointed) for non-applicant No.2 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : PRAVIN S. PATIL, J. DATED : 1 7 .02.2026

¶10

apl 827-2024 J..doc 2/6

¶11

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶12

Heard. By consent of the parties, this matter is taken for final disposal at admission stage.

¶13

By this application, the applicants, who are the matrimonial aunt, uncle and grandmother of the husband of the complainant, have approached this Court seeking quashment of the criminal proceedings initiated against them at the instance of nonapplicant No. 2, vide Charge-sheet No. 531 of 2025 arising out of Crime No. 0154 of 2024, for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 498-A, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

The submission of the applicants is that even if the allegations made in the First Information Report are taken at face value and accepted in their entirety, no offence, particularly under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, is made out against them. Hence, they seek the indulgence of this Court.

¶15

apl 827-2024 J..doc 3/6

¶16

In the light of submissions made by the learned Counsel for both sides before this Court, it would be relevant to consider Section 498-A of IPC. The bare perusal of this provision shows that vide its Explanation cruelty means any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of a woman. As per Explanation (b) harassment is done with a view to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. As such, while deciding these allegations, this Court has to first look into whether the cruelty which is allegedly falls in the explanation provided under Section 498-A of IPC.

¶17

It is also pertinent to note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and this Court has experienced that there is a tendency of implicating the husband and his relatives in the criminal offence on vague and omnibus allegations. Therefore, this Court is required to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into

¶18

apl 827-2024 J..doc 4/6

¶19

consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases.

¶20

To attract the offence, it is necessary that the allegations levelled against the Applicant should be concrete and precise. If it is found that the allegations are made without providing any specific details or describing any particular instance of harassment, in such cases, where Informant did not mention date, time and place or manner in which the alleged harassment is occurred, the Court should be slow while holding that offence is made out against the applicants.

¶21

It is also held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the catena of cases that mere trivial irritations, quarrels between spouses which happen in day- to-day married life not to be considered as cruelty. The foundation of a sound marriage is tolerance, adjustment and respecting each other. Therefore, petty quibbles, trifling differences are general and should not be exaggerated and blown out of proportion to destroy the marriage.

¶22

apl 827-2024 J..doc 5/6

¶23

In support of this submission, it will be relevant to rely upon the Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of - (i) Dara Lakshmi Narayana & Others V/s State of Telangana & Another, 2025(3) SCC 735; (ii) Preeti Gupta and Another V/s State of Jharkhand and Another, (2010) 7 Supreme Court Cases 667; and (iii) Achin Gupta V/s State of Haryana and Another, AIR 2024 SC 2548 .

¶24

In light of the aforesaid legal position and the allegations levelled against the present applicants, I am prima facie satisfied that the allegations do not constitute “cruelty” as contemplated under clauses (a) and (b) of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. All the allegations are general and omnibus in nature. Hence, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it would not be proper to continue the criminal proceedings against the present applicants.

¶25

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order:

¶26

ORDER

¶27

i) The application is partly allowed.

¶28

apl 827-2024 J..doc 6/6

¶29

ii) The proceedings in Charge-sheet No. 531 of 2025 arising out of Crime No. 0154 of 2024, for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 498-A, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, is hereby quashed and set aside against the present applicants only.

¶30

iii) Fees to the appointed Counsel be quantified as per Rules.

¶31

The application stands disposed of. No order as to the

¶32

costs.

¶33

(PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.)

¶34

R.S. Sahare

¶35

Signed by: Mrs. Ranjana Sahare Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 20/02/2026 20:02:55

Vandana Dnyaneshwar Thavkar v. State of Mah. Thr. Pso Rajapet Amravati City Tq. and Dist.Amravati and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vandana Dnyaneshwar Thavkar v. State of Mah. Thr. Pso Rajapet Amravati City Tq. and Dist.Amravati 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

Kunal S/O Arun Ramtake and 2 Others vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Bhadrawati Dist.Chandrapur and Another

Rakesh Balbirsingh Chawla vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Its Pso, Ps Beltarodi Nagpur and Antoher

M/S Unnati Motors a Division of Micropark Logistics Pvt. Ltd. through Its Poa Holder Mr Vinod Sapkal vs Chief Executive Officer Maharashtra Livestock Development Board and Others.

V.I.D.C., Thr. Its Executive Engineer, Project Construction Division, Amravati vs Ramesh Shioramji Rane and Others

Mohan Murli S/O Maghanmal Amesar vs Shri. Bhagwandas S/O Maghanmal Amesar

M/S Unnati Motors a Division of Micropark Logistics Pvt. Ltd. through Its Poa Holder Mr Vinod Sapkal vs Chief Executive Officer Maharashtra Livestock Development Board and Others.