Mukesh S/O. Manikrao Ingale And Others v. State Of Mah. Thr. Ps Ajni Nagpur And Another.

2025:BHC-NAG:12397-DB

(1) 952. APL155.24

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 155 OF 2024 Shri. Mukesh S/o Manikrao Ingale Vs.

State of Maharashtra, Thr. PSO, P.S. Ajni, Dist. Nagpur And Anr. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ms. R. G. Nitnaware, Advocate for applicant Ms. Sneha Dhote, APP for non-applicant/State CORAM :

URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE AND NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.

DATED : 18.11.2025 1.

Present application preferred by the applicant for quashing of the First Information Report in connection with Crime No. 510/2023 registered under Section 498A of IPC and consequent proceeding arising out of the same R.C.C. No. 379/2024.

2.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, who submitted that applicant no. 1 is the husband, applicant no. 2 and 3 are the in-laws, and applicant no. 4 is the sister-inlaw. They are implicated in the alleged offence on the basis of baseless and general allegations. No specific instances are narrated by the informant as far as the ill-treatment is concerned. There is no demand in notice reply she has not stated anything about the ill-treatment at the hands of the applicant no. 2 and 3. Afterthought, this F.I.R. came to be

(2) 952. APL155.24 lodged. In view of that the application deserves to be allowed.

3.

Per contra, learned A.P.P. and learned counsel for the complainant strongly oppose for the said on the ground that there is specific allegations along with the specific instances as far as the applicant no. 1 to 3 are concerned and therefore the application deserves to be rejected. 4.

On hearing both the sides and on perusal of the investigation papers, it reveals that as far as the applicant no. 4 is concerned, against whom general and omnibus allegation is levelled, no specific instances are narrated by the informant. As far as the applicant no. 1 to 3 are concerned, she has specifically narrated that after marriage in what manner she was treated at her matrimonial house. Thus, considering the specific instances narrated by the informant regarding the ill-treatment at the hands of the applicant no. 1 to 3, prima facie case is made out against them and therefore the application deserves to be allowed partly. Accordingly we proceed to pass following order:-

ORDER

i) Application is allowed partly.

ii) The prayer of the applicant no. 4 Harsha W/o Umesh Poradkar, for quashing of the F.I.R. in connection with Crime No. 501/2023 and the consequent proceeding

(3) 952. APL155.24 arising out of the said is 379/2024 is hereby allowed and the F.I.R. in consequent proceeding is hereby quashed. iii) The prayer of the applicant no. 1 to 3 for quashing of the F.I.R. and the consequent proceeding is hereby rejected.

(NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.) (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.) Shubham