It is absolutely in the fitness of things that while striking the right chord in the right direction at the right time, the Bombay High Court Bench at Aurangabad in a most remarkable, robust, relevant, rational and recent judgment titled Kalidas Sopanrao Landge and Ors vs State of Maharashtra and Anr in Criminal Application No.1931 of 2023 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2025:BHC-AUG:18440-DB that was pronounced just recently on July 2, 2025 has most rightly quashed a cruelty case against a matchmaker (also a family friend of the husband) who was accused of hiding the groom’s impotency before marriage. It was also made crystal clear by the Division Bench that he cannot be prosecuted for the offence of cruelty to wife under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code since he is not a relative of the husband. Very rightly so!
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by Hon’ble Mr Justice Sanjay A Deshmukh for a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court comprising of himself and Hon’ble Smt Justice Vibha Kankanwadi sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth precisely in para 1 that, “Heard learned Advocate for both sides as well as learned APP for the State.”
To put things in perspective, the Division Bench envisages in para 2 disclosing that:
This is an application for quashing the First Information Report (for short “the F.I.R.”) and charge-sheet in R.C.C. No.738 of 2023, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “the Cr.P.C.”), pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nilanga, Dist. Latur, arising out of Crime bearing No.0093 of 2023, registered with Kasar Shirshi Police Station, Dist. Latur, dated 30.03.2023, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 354-A, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “the I.P.C.”).”
As we see, the Division Bench then reveals in para 3 stating that:
After hearing both sides, when this Court expressed disinclination to grant any relief to applicant No.1/father-in-law, learned Advocate for the applicants sought withdrawal of the application to the extent of applicant No.1. Therefore, this application is dismissed as withdrawn against applicant No.1.”
Simply put, the Division Bench points out in para 4 that:
Learned Advocate for the applicants pointed out the report dated 30.03.2023, in which respondent No.2/informant averred that applicant No.2 is her mother-in-law, applicant No.3 is her sister-in-law, applicant No.4 is paternal aunt and applicant No.5 is a family friend of the other applicants.”
While delving deeper into the facts of the case, the Division Bench lays bare in para 5 disclosing that:
The informant further averred in her report that she married with the son of applicant No.2 on 21.11.2016. In that marriage, a dowry of Rs.2.5 Lakhs and four tolas of gold ornaments were given. After the marriage, she was treated well for six months. Thereafter, her husband, applicant Nos.2 to 4 and father-in-law started to harass her. They used to beat her and doubt her character. They starved her. They demanded Rs.1 lakh from her for purchasing a sofa and television and treated her with cruelty.”
Diving still deeper, the Division Bench then reveals in para 6 mentioning that, “The informant further averred in her report that her father-in-law attempted to become closer to her and initiate intimacy with her. She did not allow him. Her husband had a friendship with one Akash Holikar. He used to spend time with him, go out with him and stay with him till 12.00 a.m. at night. Her husband did not fulfill her rights as a wife. She did not have physical relationship with her husband as he was impotent. The said fact was concealed by the middleman viz. Nemchand Bubane. Once, on the day of marriage anniversary, her husband gifted her a sex instrument, therefore, she felt insecure.”
As things stands, the Division Bench observes in para 7 that:
The informant further averred in her report that she advised her husband to live separately. After two years of her marriage, her father-in-law performed marriage with applicant No.2 and told the reason that she was not ready to do as per his wish. Her father-in-law told her and her husband to stay separately and warned her not to disclose her husband's disorder to anybody. He said to her that he would provide medical treatment to her husband. Therefore, she believed him. Thereafter, newly married applicant No.2 also started to harass her.”
While going into further details and nitty-gritty of this leading case, the Division Bench specifies in para 8 stating that:
The informant further averred in her report that she was bearing that cruelty as her parents financial condition was not good. She informed this harassment to her parents. Her parents tried to convince her husband and the applicants not to harass her, but they did not pay any heed to them and continued the ill-treatment. Her parents also reported that harassment to middleman viz. Nemchand Bubane i.e. applicant No.5 and requested him to convince her husband and the applicants. He, instead of trying to convince them, directed her parents to pay the demanded amount for purchasing a television and sofa to them. Thereafter, her husband, father-in-law and applicant Nos.2 to 4 frequently demanded money. She was not able to pay that amount. They took out the gold necklace of 1.5 tola and a Ganthan of 4 tolas and sold it. They drove her out of the house. Therefore, on 28.01.2023, she came to her parents house and on 30.01.2023, she made a complaint to the Women Grievance Redressal Cell, Latur.”
It is worth noting that while citing the relevant case laws, the Division Bench propounds in para 13 stating that:
Relevant Authorities - Case Analysis
In the context of this case, it would be relevant to refer to the following authorities:
- Mohammad Wajid and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Another, reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 951; 2023 INSC 683, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the law as follows:
“34 … it will not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines.
The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation…” - CBI Vs. Aryan Singh, reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 379, in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows:
“10. As per the cardinal principle of law, at the stage of discharge and/or quashing of the criminal proceedings, while exercising the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the Court is not required to conduct the mini trial.”
- Kim Wansoo Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 17, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in para 9 of the judgment, has held:
“9. In State of A.P. v. Golconda Linga Swamy, this Court again held that where an FIR did not disclose the commission of an offence without anything being added or subtracted from the recitals thereof, the said FIR could be quashed.”
To be sure, the Division Bench then observes in para 14 that:
We have perused the charge-sheet, particularly the report and statements of witnesses. The witnesses have stated similar facts as stated by the informant in the report. The allegation of outraging modesty of the informant is made against her father-in-law. He has withdrawn the application.
It would be instructive to note that the Division Bench notes in para 15 that:
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 establishing from the charge-sheet against these applicants.
Most significantly, the Division Bench encapsulates in para 16 the cornerstone of this notable judgment:
As far as applicant No.5 is concerned, he is not a relative of the informant’s husband. Section 498-A of the I.P.C. stipulates that “whoever, being the husband or the relatives of the husband of a woman, subject 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”. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in case of U. Suvetha Vs. State by Inspector of Police, [(2009) 6 SCC 757] observed that “in the absence of any statutory definition, the term ‘relative’ must be assigned a meaning as is commonly understood. 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.
Finally, the Division Bench concludes by directing and holding in para 17:
Considering all the aspects, above reasons and law laid down in the authorities cited supra, if applicant Nos.2 to 5 are compelled to face the trial, it would certainly be an abuse of process of Court. We are, therefore, inclined to exercise our powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the report and charge-sheet in the interest of justice to prevent the abuse of process of Court against applicant Nos.2 to 5. The application deserves to be partly allowed. Hence, the following order.
ORDER
- The application is partly allowed.
- The application is dismissed as withdrawn against applicant No.1.
- The First Information Report and charge-sheet in R.C.C. No.738 of 2023, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nilanga, Dist. Latur, arising out of Crime bearing No.0093 of 2023, registered with Kasar Shirshi Police Station, Dist. Latur, dated 30.03.2023, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 354-A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 stands quashed against applicant Nos.2 to 5.
In conclusion, we thus see that the Division Bench of the Aurangabad Bench of Bombay High Court has very rightly quashed criminal case under Section 498A against matchmaker who hid husband’s impotency. This was primarily because the matchmaker who was also a family friend of the husband was not a relative of the husband. Very rightly so!
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut-250001, Uttar Pradesh.
