Bombay High Court quashed a cruelty case against a matchmaker, ruling he’s not liable under Section 498A IPC as he isn’t a relative. The Court also cleared the groom’s female relatives due to vague allegations and lack of evidence.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court at Aurangabad quashes the case against a matchmaker who allegedly concealed the groom’s impotency, holding he is not a “relative” of the husband under Section 498A IPC.
The Court emphasized in the case of Kalidas Sopanrao Landge and Ors v State of Maharashtra and Anr, “Matchmaker Can’t Be Jailed for Hiding Groom’s Impotency”.
Background of the Case
The present case arises from an application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of the FIR and charge-sheet in R.C.C. No.738 of 2023, pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nilanga, Dist. Latur.
The FIR was registered on 30.03.2023 at Kasar Shirshi Police Station, Dist. Latur, under Sections 498-A, 354-A, 323, 504, and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The Court heard the learned advocates for both parties and the Assistant Public Prosecutor (APP) for the State. Upon expressing reluctance to grant relief to applicant No.1 (father-in-law), the counsel for the applicants withdrew the application to that extent, and it was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn against him.
The informant, respondent No.2, alleged in her complaint that after her marriage on 21.11.2016, she was initially treated well but later subjected to cruelty by her husband, father-in-law, and applicants No. 2, 3 & 4 (mother-in-law, sister-in-law, and paternal aunt).
She claimed they assaulted her, doubted her character, and made financial demands. Her father-in-law allegedly made inappropriate advances, and her husband, who was said to be impotent, failed to maintain marital relations. She also stated that applicant No. 5, a family friend and mediator, instead of helping, supported the demand for dowry. Her gold jewelry was allegedly taken and sold, and she was eventually driven out of the house.
Following continuous harassment and a lack of resolution at the Women Grievance Redressal Cell, she lodged a formal complaint. The applicants contended that the allegations were general and baseless, and that compelling them to face trial would amount to an abuse of process. However, the APP and counsel for the informant opposed the quashing, arguing that there was substantial evidence of mental and physical cruelty, and their names were specifically mentioned in the FIR.
Court’s Observation
The Court considered an application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the FIR and charge-sheet, pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nilanga, arising from Crime No.0093 of 2023 registered at Kasar Shirshi Police Station.
The FIR alleged offences under Sections 498-A, 354-A, 323, 504, and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The informant accused her husband and his family members of subjecting her to physical and mental cruelty, including dowry demands of Rs. 1 lakh for household items, concealment of her husband’s impotency, and other forms of harassment.
Specific allegations of inappropriate conduct were made against the father-in-law, who subsequently withdrew his application, and general allegations were made against applicants No. 2, 3 & 4. The applicant No.5, a family friend, was alleged to have supported the dowry demand.
However, after examining the charge-sheet and applying relevant case law, including Mohammad Wajid v. State of U.P. (2023), CBI v. Aryan Singh (2023), and Kim Wansoo v. State of U.P. (2025), the Court held that the allegations against applicants Nos. 2 to 4 were vague and lacked specific overt acts to establish the requisite ingredients of the alleged offences.
“As far as applicant Nos. 2 to 4 are concerned, their roles are not specifically stated by the informant, particularly the overt act. General and vague allegations are made against these applicants, which are not sustainable. The essential ingredients of Sections 498-A, 354-A, 323, 504, and 506 of the I.P.C. to constitute the cruelty, etc., are not established from the charge-sheet against these applicants.”
Further, regarding applicant No.5, the Court noted that he was not a relative of the husband as defined under Section 498-A IPC, referencing U. Suvetha v. State [(2009) 6 SCC 757]. The Court said,
“….. Ordinarily, it would include father, mother, husband or wife, son, daughter, brother, sister, nephew or niece, grandson or granddaughter of an individual, or the spouse of any person. The meaning of the word `relative’ would depend upon the nature of the statute. It principally includes a person related by blood, marriage, or adoption”. Therefore, applicant No.5 cannot be prosecuted, as he is not a relative of the other applicants.”
Hence, the Court concluded that the continuation of criminal proceedings against applicants Nos. 2 to 5 would amount to abuse of the judicial process. Accordingly, the application was partly allowed, dismissed as withdrawn against applicant No.1 and allowed for applicant Nos. 2 to 5, quashing the FIR and charge-sheet against them.
Case Title: Kalidas Sopanrao Landge and Ors v State of Maharashtra and Anr
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1931 OF 2023
READ ORDER HERE
Click Here to Read More Reports on 498A Cruelty Case
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
