Shri Vipin S/O Babanrao Kamble and 5 Others vs State of Maha. Thr. Investigation Officer/ Pso Rajapeth Ps, Amravati City Dist. Amravati and 2

¶1

2026:BHC-NAG:2995-DB

¶2

1 44 APL 856.24

¶3

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

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION [APL] NO.856 OF 2024

¶5

1. Shri Vipin s/o Babanrao Kamble (Husband), Aged about 33 years, Occupation-Nil.

¶6

Shri Babanrao s/o Pandurangji Kamble (Father-in-law) Aged about 56 years, Occupation-Retired. 3) Sau. Lalita w/o Banarao Kamble (Mother-in-law) Aged about 47 years, Occu.Housewife, (1 to 3) R/o. 133, Vaibhav Nagar, Narsala Road, Dighori, Nagpur Tah. Nagpur District. .. Applicants ..Versus..

¶7

The State of Maharashtra, Through the Investigation Officer/ Police Station Officer, Rajapeth Police Station, Amravati City, District-Amravati-444 605. 2) Payal w/o Vipin Kamble, (Wife) Aged about 27 years, Occ. Service. 3) Dnyaneshwar s/o Wamanrao Tale (Father of wife) (2 & 3) R/o. 87, Postal Colony, Sai Nagar, Amravati-444 607. .. Non-Applicants

¶8

2 44 APL 856.24

¶9

Applicant No.1 in person for all Applicants. Mr. A.M. Ghogare, APP for Non-Applicant No.1/State. Ms. Shreya Bhagat, Advocate (Appointed) for Non-Applicant No.2.

¶10

CORAM : PRAVIN S. PATIL, J. DATED : 17.02.2026.

¶11

JUDGMENT

¶12

By this application, the applicants are seeking to quash and set aside Chargesheet No.531 dated 14.8.2025 arising out of FIR No.154/2024 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶13

The present applicants approached before this court with the submission that the as allegations are levelled against them in the present complaint as well as the statement recorded by the investigation officer against them, no prima facie offence is made out against them to attract Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, hence they seek indulgence of this court in the matter.

¶14

In the light of the submission made by the applicants, I have perused the FIR dated 16.3.2024 and the supplementary

¶15

3 44 APL 856.24

¶16

statement of the complainant dated 19.3.2024 and the statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. From the perusal of the allegations which are levelled against the present applicants, it is seen that same are of general nature that applicants are not giving her proper treatment as daughter in law, doubted her chastity etc. It is also alleged in the complaint that the present applicants did not behave properly with her parents when they visited their house. The main allegation levelled against the applicants is that applicants were not behaving respectfully with her parents. In view of this complaint of non-applicant no.2 and the statement recorded during investigation, applicants are chargesheeted in the matter.

¶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 consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases.

¶18

4 44 APL 856.24

¶19

To attract the offence, it is necessary that the allegations levelled against the Applicants 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.

¶20

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.

¶21

In the light of this legal position, I have specifically perused the entire record. The allegations which are levelled against the present applicants no where states specific date, time and the nature of harassment caused to her in the matter.

¶22

5 44 APL 856.24

¶23

The only general and omnibus allegations are made against the present applicants in the matter. Hence, prima facie, the offence under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. is not made against the present applicants.

¶24

In the circumstances, to keep continue the criminal proceeding against the present applicants would nothing but abuse of process of law. Hence, I proceed to pass the following

¶25

order :

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

(1) The application is allowed.

¶28

(2) The Chargesheet No.531 dated 14.8.2025 arising

¶29

out of FIR No.154/2024 registered for the offence punishable under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code against applicants with Rajapeth Police Station, Amravati

¶30

City, District-Amravati is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶31

(3) The fees of the appointed counsel for Non-

¶32

Applicant No.2 be quantified as per the rules.

¶33

(Pravin S. Patil, J.)

¶34

Gulande

¶35

Signed by: A.S. GULANDE Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 21/02/2026 10:13:07

Shri Vipin S/O Babanrao Kamble and 5 Others v. State of Maha. Thr. Investigation Officer/ Pso Rajapeth Ps, Amravati City Dist. Amravati and 2

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Vipin S/O Babanrao Kamble and 5 Others v. State of Maha. Thr. Investigation Officer/ Pso Rajapeth Ps, Amravati City Dist. Amravati and 2

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

Sagar S/O Sanjay Pawar and 3 Others vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Beltarodi, Nagpur

Sau. Kavita W/O Arun Sutar @ Smt. Kavita Shrihari Manusmare vs Shri. Arun Dhondiram Sutar

General Manager, Central Railway through Dy. Chief Executive Engineer (Construction), Mumbai vs Smt. Jyotsna Anant Bhondu and Others

Tushar Namdeo Bhilkar and Others vs the State of Mah. Thr. Pso, Ps Warora, Tah. Warora Dist. Chandrapur and Another.

Dinkar Bhanudas Bhawar vs Govt. of Mah. Thr. Collector, Buldana

V.I.D.C. through Its Executive Engineer, Bembla Project, Yavatmal Vs Pundlik S/O Sadu Ambhore (Dead) through Lrs. Manorama Wd/O Pundlik Ambhore and Others