The Bombay High Court quashed a 498A case, highlighting the misuse of the law to implicate all members of the husband’s family, regardless of their actual involvement, stressing the need for scrutiny in such cases.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
MUMBAI: The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court has recently delivered a judgment, quashing criminal proceedings against the mother, aunt, and sister of a man accused of cruelty and dowry harassment by his wife. The Court held that the allegations against these relatives were “general and omnibus,” while rejecting the husband’s plea, noting that specific allegations were made against him.
The judgment, delivered on October 8, 2025, by Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke and Justice Nandesh S. Deshpande, arose from a criminal application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). The applicants sought to quash an FIR and subsequent charge sheet filed under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 406, and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Background of the Case
The case originated when a woman complained to her husband and his relatives. She alleged that she was mistreated after marriage because her wedding was not conducted according to her in-laws’ expectations. She also claimed that her husband, allegedly at the instigation of his family members, demanded Rs. 50 lakh from her parents to expand his business.
Based on the complaint dated April 9, 2019, the Mankapur Police Station in Nagpur registered an FIR, leading to the filing of a charge sheet.
Arguments Presented
The husband and his family contended that no prima facie case was made out against them. Their counsel argued that the FIR was filed as a “counterblast” following the husband’s ‘Talaq’ pronounced nearly two months earlier.
A key argument highlighted the absence of specific allegations against the relatives. For instance, the husband’s sister was studying in the U.S.A. even before the marriage, making her involvement in the alleged harassment impossible. Additionally, the applicants challenged the legality of the husband’s arrest, alleging non-compliance with Section 41 of the Cr.P.C.
On the other hand, the State and the complainant emphasized that specific allegations existed against the husband, defending the arrest and asserting that procedural compliance had been followed.
Court’s Analysis
The Court examined the allegations separately for the husband and his relatives:
Allegations Against Relatives
The bench observed that “general and omnibus allegations are levelled against them”. It took note of the sister’s presence abroad during the relevant period.
The Court cited several Supreme Court decisions, including Preeti Gupta vs State of Jharkhand and Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam vs The State of Bihar, highlighting concerns about the misuse of Section 498A IPC.
Referring to Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others vs. State of Telangana, the Court stated:
“It has become a recurring tendency to implicate every member of the husband’s family, irrespective of their role or actual involvement, merely because a dispute has arisen between the spouses… allowing the prosecution to proceed would amount to an abuse of the process of law.”
Consequently, the bench concluded that it was a fit case to exercise our jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. concerning the husband’s relatives.
Allegations Against the Husband
For the husband, the Court noted:
“Admittedly, there is specific allegations and specific instances are narrated by the informant and therefore, at this stage, prima facie case is made out against the applicant No. 1.”
Legality of Arrest
Regarding the challenge to the husband’s arrest, the Court examined the station diary and found that he appeared suo motu before the Investigating Officer, who recorded the reasons in writing before making the arrest. The Court concluded that the procedure had been followed, ruling that the contention of invalid arrest was “not sustainable.”
The Bombay High Court partly allowed the criminal application:
- Quashed the charge sheet and all consequent proceedings against the husband’s mother, aunt, and sister.
- Rejected the application in respect of the husband, allowing criminal proceedings against him to continue.
Case Title:
Owais Zahidali Saiyed & 3 Others versus The State of Maharashtra & Other
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.135 OF 2020
Read Judgment: