Bombay High Court
Jayshree Padmakar Dange And Another vs The State Of Mah. Thr. Pso Kingaon Raja ... on 20 January, 2026
2026:BHC-NAG:1234-DB
1 120.APL.712-2023 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 712 OF 2023
1. Ku. Jayshree Padmakar Dange,
Aged about 38 yrs., Occ. Service,
R/o Vishwakarma Colony, Court
Road, Paratwada Salebad,
Paratwada, Achalpur Amravati.
2. Ku. Minakshi Padmakar Dange,
Aged about 36 yrs., Occ. Service,
R/o C/o Maruti Namdev Bhoyar,
VHS, 56-41, Bajoriya Nagar,
Yavatmal. APPLICANTS
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer
Kingaon Raja, District Buldhana.
2. Jayshree Vijaykumar Kayande,
Aged about 30 yrs., Occ. Service,
R/o C/o Shivaji Yedu Nagre,
Hiwarkhed Purna, Taluka Sindhkhed
Raja, District Buldhana. NON-APPLICANTS
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 932 OF 2023
1. Shashikala Bajirao Nagre,
Aged about 77 yrs., Occ. House Wife,
R/o Mu. Hiwarkhed Purna, Taluka-
Sindkhed Raja, Hiwarkhed,
Buldhana.(paternal Aunt of Husband
of Respondent No.2)
2 120.APL.712-2023 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt
2. Balu Himmatrao Kayande,
Aged about 41 yrs., Occ. Farmer,
R/o At.Post Umberkhed, Taluka-
Deulgaon Raja, Pr. Sindkhed
Umbarkhed Deolgaon Raja,
District-Buldhana.
(Cousin brother of Husband of
Respondent No.2)
3. Shriram Prakash Ilag,
Aged about 49 yrs., Occ. Farmer,
R/o Maharchikna, Buldhana.
(actual name Prakash Shriram Ilag)
(Maternal uncle of Husband of
Respondent No.2)
4. Bhiwa Arjun Jaybhay,
Aged about 65 yrs., Occ. Farmer,
R/o Mu. Dagadwadi, Post-Mehuna
Raja, Dagadwadi, Buldhana.
(Cousin brother of Husband of
Respondent No.2)
5. Kalyan Shivajirao Bankar,
Aged about 41 yrs., Occ. Farmer,
R/o At. Satephal, Po- Akola, DEO,
Satephal Jalna.
(mediator of marriage)
6. Vilas Bajirao Nagre,
Aged about 52 yrs., Occ. Labour,
R/o Plot No.6 GAT No.61, Mahu
Nagar, Beed By Pass, Opp-Bajaj
Hospital, Satara Parisar, Aurangabad,
District -Aurangabad.
(Cousin brother of Husband of
Respondent No.2) APPLICANTS
3 120.APL.712-2023 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer
Kingaon Raja, District Buldhana.
2. Jayshree Vijaykumar Kayande,
Aged about 30 yrs., Occ. Service,
R/o C/o Shivaji Yedu Nagre,
Hiwarkhed Purna, Taluka Sindhkhed
Raja, District Buldhana. NON-APPLICANTS
-----------------------------------------------
Mr. S.Z. Qazi, Advocate for the Applicants.
Mr. N.B. Jawade, APP for the Non-applicant No.1/State.
Ms. P.R. Arbat (Awathale), Advocate Appointed for the
Non-applicant No.2.
-----------------------------------------------
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.
DATED : 20th JANUARY, 2026.
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
1. Heard.
2. ADMIT. Heard finally by the consent of learned Counsel for the respective parties.
3. Both these Applications are preferred by the Applicants arising out of First Information Report bearing Crime No.74/2023 registered with Police Station Kingaon Raja, 4 120.APL.712-2023 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt District Buldhana for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 494, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for quashing of the same.
4. The Applicant No.1 in Criminal Application (APL) No. 712/2023 is the second wife and the Applicant No.2 is the sister of Applicant No.1, whereas in Criminal Application (APL) No. 932/2023, the Applicants are the paternal aunt, cousin brother of husband of the Non-applicant No.2 and other nearest relatives approached this Court for quashing of the FIR.
5. The crime is registered on the basis of a report lodged by the Non-applicant No.2 against the present Applicants on an allegation that her marriage with the co-accused Vijaykumar Kayande was performed on 24.05.2014. After marriage she resumed cohabitation. Initially for three to four months she was treated well and subsequent to that she was ill-treated by all the Applicants for various reasons. Though she was pregnant no care was taken either by her husband or other relatives, therefore she constrained to leave the matrimonial house. When she was residing at her matrimonial house alongwith her parents, her husband ie. co-accused Vijaykumar 5 120.APL.712-2023 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt has performed the second marriage and thereby the present Applicants have committed an offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 506, 504 and 494 of IPC.
6. Heard learned Counsel for the Applicants, who submitted that, Applicant Nos. 1 and 2 in Criminal Application (APL) No. 712/2023 are not the relatives within the definition of 'relative', which is the requirement to attract the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC. He submitted that, there is nothing on record to show that co-accused Vijaykumar has performed the marriage with the Applicant No.1 in this Application. Thus, in the absence of evidence there is nothing on record to show the involvement of the present Applicants to attract the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 494 of IPC.
7. He submitted that, the other Applicants in Criminal Application (APL) No. 932/2023 are the distant relatives and on the basis of general, omnibus and vague allegations they are implicated in the alleged offence. Considering no prima facie case is made out against them, the Application, deserves to be allowed.
6 120.APL.712-2023 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt
8. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on Rekha Vs. State of Maharashtra, Thr. Police Station Officer, 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 291 and Writ Petition No. 1098/2020 Sachin Narayan Sarode & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. and submitted that in view of observations therein the offence under Sections 498-A and 494 of IPC is not made out. In view of that, the Applications deserve to be allowed.
9. Per contra, learned APP strongly opposed for the same and submitted that as far as Section 494 of IPC is concerned, the Applicant No.1 in Criminal Application (APL) No. 712/2023 is the second wife and the photographs on record sufficiently shows that the marriage was performed with the co- accused Vijaykumar and Applicant No.1/Jayshree Padmakar Dange, and therefore, the offence punishable under Section 494 of IPC is made out. As far as Section 498-A of IPC is concerned, he considered that general allegations are levelled against all the Applicants. In view of that, the Applications deserve to be rejected.
7 120.APL.712-2023 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt
10. Learned appointed Counsel for the Non-applicant No.2, has endorsed the same contentions and prays for rejection of the Applications.
11. On hearing both the sides and on perusal of the entire recitals of the FIR it reveals that, the Applicants in Criminal Application (APL) No. 932/2023 are the distant relatives of the husband of the Non-applicant No.2, whereas the Applicants in Criminal Application (APL) No. 712/2023 i.e. the Applicant No.1 is the second wife and Applicant No.2 is the sister of the second wife. On perusal of the entire recitals of the FIR, the allegations as far as these Applicants are concerned to attract the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC is concerned, which is general and omnibus in nature.
12. At this stage, reference can be given to Section 498-A of IPC, which reads as under:
"498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.--Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.--For the purpose of this Section, "cruelty"
means-
8 120.APL.712-2023 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand."
13. The essential ingredients of Section 498-A of IPC are that the husband or the relatives of the husband commit an act of 'cruelty' against a woman, for which they are liable for imprisonment of up to three years. The term 'cruelty' as contained in Section 498-A of IPC has been explained to mean such conduct which is likely to drive the complainant to commit suicide, or harassment with a view to meet any unlawful demand for property or valuable security. The conduct of the present Applicants even accepting as it is as per the allegations which is general, omnibus in nature and no wilful conduct is narrated on their part and no specific instances are narrated on their part, and therefore, as far as offence under Section 498-A of IPC is concerned is not made out against the present Applicants.
14. Similarly, Section 494 of IPC, provides for punishment of seven years with fine for whoever having a 9 120.APL.712-2023 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt husband or wife marries again during his/her lifetime during subsistence of such marriage. It is explicitly clear from reading the Section itself that Section 494 of IPC applies to the husband and/or wife who commits an offence by marrying again during the subsistence of the valid marriage. Hence, Section 494 of IPC will attract where the husband or wife who commits an offence by marrying again during the subsistence of the valid marriage.
15. As far as the Applicants in Criminal Application (APL) No. 932/2023 are concerned, who are the distant relatives and the only allegation against them that they were present in the said marriage. Mere their presence is not sufficient to attract against them as far as Section 494 of IPC is concerned. There has to be some overt act attributed to them to attract the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC is concerned. As far as the Applicant No.1 in Criminal Application (APL) No. 712/2023 is concerned, against whom the offence under Section 494 of IPC is made out as the photographs on record which is collected during the investigation sufficiently shows that during the existence of the first marriage of said Vijaykumar she has performed the marriage. Therefore, the 10 120.APL.712-2023 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt offence under Section 494 of IPC is made out against the Applicant No.1/Jayshree Padmakar Dange. As far as the Applicant No.2 is concerned, except her presence nothing alleged regarding any overt act attributed to her in the said marriage, and therefore, Criminal Application (APL) No. 712/2023 deserves to be allowed partly, whereas Criminal Application (APL) No. 932/2023 deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER i. Criminal Application (APL) No. 932/2023 is allowed.
ii. The First Information Report in connection with Crime No. 74/2023 registered with Police Station Kingaon Raja, District Buldhana for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 494, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, is hereby quashed and set aside to the extent of all the Applicants in Criminal Application (APL) No. 932/2023.
iii. Criminal Application (APL) No. 712/2023 is partly allowed.
iv. The First Information Report in connection with Crime No. 74/2023 registered with Police Station 11 120.APL.712-2023 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt Kingaon Raja, District Buldhana is hereby quashed and set aside for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 498-A, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code to the extent of the Applicant No.1/Ku. Jayshree Padmakar Dange in Criminal Application (APL) No. 712/2023. v. The prosecution has to proceed against the Applicant No.1/Ku. Jayshree Padmakar Dange to the extent of offence punishable under Section 494 read with Section 34 of IPC.
vi. The First Information Report in connection with Crime No. 74/2023 registered with Police Station Kingaon Raja, District Buldhana for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 494, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, is hereby quashed and set aside to the extent of the Applicant No.2/Ku. Minakshi Padmakar Dange in Criminal Application (APL) No. 712/2023. vii. Fees of the Appointed Counsel be quantified as per rules.
16. Pending application/s, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.
(URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.) S.D.Bhimte Signed by: Mr.S.D.Bhimte Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 27/01/2026 18:45:40