Vijay Shyam Chindale v. State Of Maharashtra Thr Pso Ps Avdhootwadi Yavatmal And ANR.

2026:BHC-NAG:1402-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 1447 OF 2025 Vijay Shyam Chindale Aged about 45 years, Occ. Labourer, R/o. Near T.B. Ward Hospital, Netaji Chowak, Yavatmal ... Applicant

Versus

1. State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station Officer, Police Station Avdhootwadi, Yavatmal

2. Vijayeta w/o Vijay Chindale Aged about 35 years, Occ. Service, R/o. Masanganj, Near School No.2, Amravati ... Non-applicants Mr. Vivek Awchat, Advocate for applicant.

Mrs. M.A. Barabde, APP for non-applicant No.1/State. Mr. Sumit B. Gandhe, Advocate non-applicant No.2. CORAM :

URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, JJ.

DATE :

23.01.2026 ORAL JUDGMENT:

Heard.

(2) Admit.

(3) Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties.

(4) Present application is preferred by the husband for quashing of the First Information Report in connection with Crime No.1160/2024 registered with Police Station Awdhootwadi, Yavatmal, for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 494 of the Indian Penal Code and the consequent proceeding arising out of the same bearing RCC No.109/2025.

(5) Heard the learned counsel for the applicant, who submitted that on the basis of the report lodged by the non-applicant No.2, the applicant is an arraigned as an accused on an allegation that her marriage with the applicant was performed in the year 2005. After marriage, she resumed the co-habitation, but she was not treated well and therefore, she constrained to leave the matrimonial house. Thereafter, there was a compromise between the husband and wife and she again resumed the co-habitation after 2018. But, after resuming the co-habitation also she was not treated well and thereafter, she approached to the police station and lodged this report. As per the allegations in the FIR, since her marriage till 2021 she was ill-treated by the present applicant. On the basis of the said report, police have registered the crime against the present applicant.

(6) Learned counsel Mr. Awchat, submitted that this is fourth complaint filed by the non-applicant No.2 as far as the offence under Section 498-A is concerned. He has invited my attention towards the copy of the judgment in RCC No.614/2010, RCC No.119/2013 and RCC No.801/2015. All these complaints were filed on the basis of the report lodged by the non-applicant No.2 under Section 498-A. He submitted that in all the offences, he is acquitted. Now again, with a new allegation, this FIR came to be lodged against the present applicant. He submitted that as far as the Section 498-A is concerned, admittedly, no prima facie case is made out against the present applicant. This aspect is also considered by the trial Court and the trial Court has already acquitted the present applicant and with the similar allegation again the applicant cannot be prosecuted. In view of that, the FIR deserves to be quashed.

(7) Per contra, learned APP strongly opposed the said contention and submitted that during the subsistence of the first marriage, the applicant has performed the second marriage and thereafter, this complaint came to be lodged. However, she has admitted the position that this is the fourth complaint filed by the non-

applicant No.2.

(8) Learned counsel for the non-applicant No.2 also endorsed the same contentions and submitted that whenever the complaints are filed there was compromised between the applicant and the non-applicant No.2. Thereafter, non-applicant No.2 resumed the co-habitation. However, she was not treated well and therefore, all the complaints came to be filed against the present applicant. In view of that, the application deserves to be rejected. (9) On hearing both the sides and on perusal of the recitals of the FIR, it reveals that as per the allegation of the nonapplicant No.2 that she was ill-treated since her marriage to 2021, however, the FIR came to be lodged in the year 2024 i.e. on 28.09.2024. In the meantime, approximately three complaints were filed, one complaint was filed in the year 2010, bearing RCC No.

614/2010, wherein on the basis of the compromise, the applicant was acquitted. The second complaint was filed in the year 01.03.2013, bearing RCC No.119/2013, wherein on the basis of the merits, the applicant was acquitted by the Court and third complaint was filed on 01.09.

prosecution, the trial Court has acquitted the present applicant. On the basis of the similar allegation again the present applicant came to be implicated in the alleged offence. Thus, considering the series of the litigations which were filed with the similar allegations, it is apparent that the non-applicant No.2 has misused the provisions and filed the complaints against the present applicant. This aspect is considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the catena of decisions, especially in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam Vs.

State of Bihar, reported in 2022 (6) SCC 599, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that "The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of Section 498A IPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said judgments that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them."

(10) In view of the above observations, admittedly, here considering the record, it appears that there was a misuse of the provision under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. As far as the offence under Section 494 is concerned, on perusal of the entire investigation papers though, it is alleged that during the first marriage the present applicant has performed the second marriage, however, none of the statements reveal that when the said marriage was performed by the present applicant, there is no documentary evidence on record that he has begotten one son from the second marriage also. Thus, in absence of any evidence, the allegation of the non-applicant No.2 that he has performed the second marriage during the existence of first marriage is also not substantiated during the investigation. In view of that, the application deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order :

O R D E R

(i) The criminal application is allowed.

(ii) The FIR in connection with Crime No.1160/2024 registered with Police Station Awdhootwadi, Yavatmal, for the offence punishable under Sections 498A and 494 of the Indian Penal Code and the consequent proceeding arising out of the same bearing RCC

No.109/2025 is hereby quashed and set aside against the present applicant.

(11) The criminal application is disposed of.

[URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.] Prity Signed by: Mrs. Prity Gabhane Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 29/01/2026 10:27:11