Latest news with #NagpurBench
The Hindu
5 days ago
- The Hindu
Marriage is spiritual union, not legal battle: Bombay High Court flags misuse of matrimonial laws
The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court has quashed a criminal case involving serious charges of cruelty, unnatural sex, and dowry harassment, observing that marriage is a sacred institution and should not be reduced to prolonged legal battles that serve no constructive purpose. A Division Bench comprising Justices Nitin W. Sambre and M.M. Nerlikar in an order dated July 8, 2025, that was made available on Monday (July 15, 2025), allowed three connected criminal applications seeking to quash FIR registered at Beltarodi Police Station, Nagpur, under Sections 498-A, 377 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The charges were levelled by a woman against her husband, two sisters-in-law, and a maternal aunt-in-law following a matrimonial dispute. 'Needless to mention that considering the recent trend of filing first information reports against as many as persons from husband side, has become imperative to look the matters of matrimonial disputes from a different angle, and therefore, if the parties settle their disputes amicably in order to live peacefully, it is the duty of the Court to encourage such action by entertaining the prayer for quashing of the first information report, charge sheet or criminal proceedings,' the order said. The Bench noted that the parties had reached a mutual settlement, culminating in a decree of divorce passed by the Family Court on July 1, 2025, under Section 13(B) of the Special Marriage Act. The informant — wife also appeared before the court and gave her consent for quashing of the criminal proceedings, stating she wished to move forward in life. 'Marital discord has now a days become menace in society due to various factors. The parties who are fighting due to these marital discords are having several remedies in law. The small issue between the two are spoiling the entire life and the marriages which are sacrosanct in Hindus are at stake,' the order read. The Bench observed that although the offences were non-compoundable, the court was empowered under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash proceedings if doing so would serve the ends of justice and prevent abuse of the legal process. Citing precedents such as Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, the court held that matrimonial offences with a predominantly civil character should not be allowed to drag on when the possibility of conviction is remote and the parties have resolved their differences. 'The right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution means more than mere survival or animal existence,' the court stated, adding that in cases where reconciliation is no longer possible, ending litigation early is essential to protect the mental and emotional well-being of both parties. 'Marriages are not merely a social contract, but a spiritual union that binds two souls together. However, now days, these scared marriages receive set back in the above circumstances. The distress, disharmony and lack of adjustment amongst the persons lead to conflict,' the judges observed. The court also flagged the rising trend of multiple FIRs being filed against entire families in matrimonial disputes and urged courts to look at such matters through a different lens. It further noted that legislation intended to protect marital relationships – such as the Domestic Violence Act and the Special Marriage Act – is increasingly being misused, leading to a flood of litigation, psychological distress, and irreversible harm to families and children. 'It is the duty of the court to encourage a respectful settlement and not drag parties through prolonged criminal trials, especially when the dispute is private in nature and both sides have chosen to part ways amicably,' the court held. Accordingly, the FIR, charge sheet, and criminal proceedings pending before the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur, is hereby quashed and set aside, the court observed.
Indian Express
01-07-2025
- Indian Express
Merely saying ‘I love you' without sexual intent isn't sexual harassment, says HC
The Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court on Monday, overturned the conviction of a man accused of sexually harassing a minor, ruling that merely saying, 'I love you' does not, in itself, amount to sexual intent. The accused was previously found guilty of offences under sections 354 A (i) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). The case stems from a report filed by the then 17-year-old- minor victim on 23 October, 2015. She had alleged that the accused came on his motorcycle, held her hands and said, 'I love you', while she was walking to her home with her cousin. Based on this report, the accused was booked. The trial court subsequently convicted the accused, sentencing him to three years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 5,000, and two more months if he failed to pay the fine. The accused's lawyer, Sonali Khobragade, argued that there was previous enmity between the families and that the prosecution had failed to examine any independent witnesses. The lawyer also argued that the age of the victim was not proved. The prosecution, on the other hand, relied on the girl's testimony, along with statements from her cousin, who accompanied her during the incident and another witness, and her birth certificate to support their case. However, the High Court, confirmed that the victim's age was indeed proven by a valid public document (birth certificate),. The court emphasised that merely saying 'I love you' by itself does not amount to 'sexual intent' as contemplated by the legislature. Intention, the court noted, is something that has to be gathered from all surrounding circumstances. 'In this case, there was no inappropriate touch beyond holding the hand, no repeat behaviour, no suggestive body language, and no attempt to take the interaction any further,' the court stated. The court said that 'intention' is an inner state of mind that must be determined from surrounding facts and circumstances. For an act to be considered 'sexual' or to have 'sexual intent', it must be related to or associated with sex, or involve physical contact or express sexual overtures, indicating an intention to 'drag in the angle of sex'. The court observed that while the girl was indeed a minor, the alleged act did not meet the definition of 'sexual assault' under Section 7 of the POCSO Act, which involves touching private parts or making sexually motivated contact. The judgment also took note of the trial court's failure to carefully assess what qualifies as 'sexual intent' under the law. With this, the High Court allowed the appeal, acquitted the accused of all charges, and directed that he be released from jail immediately, unless he is involved in any other case. Any fine paid during the trial process is also to be refunded.
India Today
30-06-2025
- Politics
- India Today
Aurangzeb tomb row: Court grants bail to 72 accused in Nagpur violence
The Nagpur District and Sessions Court on Monday granted bail to 72 individuals accused in the violent clashes that erupted in Nagpur's Palace Complex in March this follows a recent decision by the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court, which last week granted bail to nine others accused in the same case. The High Court noted that the investigation had been completed and a chargesheet filed, thus finding no justification for continued custody of the violence took place on March 17 amid escalating tensions over the Aurangzeb tomb issue in Chhatrapati Sambhaji Nagar. A rumour regarding the burning of a holy Chadar (quilt) reportedly sparked the unrest. Around 500 to 600 people from the Muslim community gathered near the Shree Chhatrapati Maharaj Statue at Gandhi Gate in Nagpur, raising slogans against the police. According to the prosecution, the gathering soon turned violent as the crowd allegedly armed themselves with stones, petrol bombs, and other weapons, attacking police personnel. The violence resulted in damage to several police vehicles and public property. The prosecution further claimed that women police officers were abused and outraged during the incident, with four officers and 24 police constables sustaining revealed that the incident may have been instigated through messages circulated in a WhatsApp group named 'Sunni Youth Force,' administered by co-accused Faheem Khan. Khan, considered the alleged mastermind of the violence, remains in judicial custody, with his bail plea still pending.- EndsInputs from Yogesh PandeMust Watch
The Hindu
25-06-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Bombay High Court grants bail to nine accused in Nagpur riots over Aurangzeb's tomb row
Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke of the Bombay High Court's Nagpur Bench on Wednesday granted bail to nine persons arrested in connection with the riots that erupted on March 17, 2025, against demands for removal of Mughal emperor Aurangzeb's tomb in Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar district. The court observed that while the accusations were serious — including charges under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Arms Act, and multiple State Acts — the investigation was complete, a chargesheet had been filed, and prolonged incarceration without trial would serve little purpose. Disposing of the bail applications, the judge ordered that the applicants — Mohammad Iqbal Ismail Ansari; Mohd. Absar Mohd. Ismail Ansari; Mohd. Izhar Mohd. Ismail Ansari; Mohd. Ejaz Mohd. Ismail Ansari; Mohammad Rahil; Mohammad Yasir; Mohd. Muzammil Ansari; Ashfaque Ullah Khan, and Mohd. Iftekhar Mohd. Sabir — be released on bail on their executing a bond in the sum of ₹1 lakh each with one solvent surety of the like amount each. The accused were arrested under Sections 45, 49, 50, 61(2), 74, 76, 79, 109, 115(2), 117(2), 117(4), 118(1), 118(2), 121(1), 121(2), 125, 126(2), 127(2), 132, 135, 189,(2), 189(3), 189(4), 189(5), 189(9), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 192, 195(1), 195(2), 196(1), 197(1), 223, 296, 324(2), 324(3), 324(4), 324(5), 324(6), 326(F), 326(G), 351(2), 351(3), 352, and 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita read with Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act read with Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Defacement of Property Act and under Sections 3, 4, and 5 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act and under Sections 37(1) and 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act. The judge ordered that the applicants should not indulge in the similar type of activities and one single registration of the crime of the similar nature would lead to cancellation of bail. They should not induce or threat or promise to any of witnesses connected with the crime in question and should not tamper with the prosecution evidence. The applicants should attend proceedings before the trial on every date without seeking any exemption, unless there were exceptional circumstances. 'It is a settled principle of law that 'bail is rule and jail is exception'. Considering the investigation is already completed and chargesheet is already filed, no purpose will be served by keeping the applicants behind bar and the trial will take its own time for its final disposal,' the judge said. 'Threat to public order' The prosecution strongly opposed the bail, with Senior Public Prosecutor D.V. Chauhan argued that the alleged actions amounted to 'a form of terrorism' and posed a threat to public order and safety. He cited CCTV footage, mobile location records, and a WhatsApp group named 'Sunni Youth Force,' allegedly used to mobilise the mob, as evidence of the applicants' involvement. However, defence counsel — including senior advocate A.V. Gupta and others — countered that the evidence, including Call Detail Records (CDRs) and belatedly conducted test identification parades, did not substantiate specific roles for the accused. They argued that the accused had been arrested primarily on suspicion and had already spent more than three months in custody without trial. Advocate Mohammad Aadil Sheikh, appearing for one of the accused, argued that the probe in the case was complete and hence the accused should be granted bail. According to police reports, stone pelting and arson were reported in several parts of Nagpur on March 17 after rumours began circulating about a 'chadar' with holy inscriptions being burnt during protests led by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) seeking the removal of Aurangzeb's tomb located at Khultabad town in Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar district. Assistant Police Inspector Jitendra Gadge, who was on duty, reported that a large group of nearly 500–600 people from the Muslim community later gathered at the Gandhi Gate, raising slogans and reportedly attacking police personnel with stones and petrol bombs. The applicants also caused damage to the public and government property. Five Deputy Commissioners of Police, one Assistant Sub Inspector and 25 police constables who were trying to keep peace and maintain law and order situation, sustained injuries in the alleged incident. CCTV footage discloses involvement of applicants in the alleged incident. Statements of witnesses disclose involvement of applicants in provoking the public at large. At various places, people started gathering along with weapons and the accused attacked police personnel at Bhaldarpura Square with deadly weapons and stones. They used petrol bombs and abused police officers. The mob also outraged modesty of women police officers and constables and abused them in filthy language. They also caused damage to vehicles, the police charge sheet said. Some persons burnt effigies of grave of Aurangzeb at Shree Chhatrapati Maharaj Statue, Gandhi Gate, Mahal, Nagpur. The said incident was reported by one Faheem Khan by approaching the police station along with 50-60 persons. On the basis of the said report, the crime was registered under Section 223 of the BNSS read with Sections 37(1) and 37(2) and 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act against nine persons. More than 123 persons, including 19 juveniles, were arrested by the Nagpur police following the riots.
News18
18-06-2025
- News18
Women Often Make Sweeping Accusations Against In-Laws To Teach Lesson To Husband's Family: HC
Last Updated: "There is a tendency of the wife to implicate the husband and his family members in the web of crime,' the court observed, cautioning against sweeping accusations with no evidence The Bombay High Court's Nagpur Bench recently quashed criminal proceedings against a man's relatives in a domestic violence case, while allowing the case to proceed against the husband. A bench of Justices Pravin S. Patil and Anil S. Kilor passed the order in a criminal application filed by eight members of a family, including the husband and his relatives, seeking to quash charges filed under Sections 498A (cruelty to wife), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The complaint, filed by a woman on August 30, 2023, accused her husband and his family members of harassing her for dowry and insulting her background. She claimed that shortly after their marriage in June 2014, she was mentally and physically abused, and often taunted for not bringing sufficient dowry. The case was registered at Police Station Ansing, Washim District. However, the petitioners told the court that the allegations were retaliatory and stemmed from a matrimonial dispute. They pointed out that the husband had already filed a divorce petition in June 2022 and that the wife had left the matrimonial home without any intimation. A missing person complaint had also been lodged by the husband before that. The high court observed that the allegations against the husband were specific and serious—especially the wife's assertion that he doubted her character and physically assaulted her. However, when it came to the other accused (his relatives), the court found the allegations to be 'vague and general", lacking any specific details such as time, place, or nature of harassment. It emphasised that only out of ulterior motives to settle a personal score, often wives make generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence. 'As a result, the family members of husband has to face the agony of criminal trial, when no prima facie case is made out against them," court highlighted. Stating that in the present case, there was no specific allegation disclosing date, time and place or manner in which alleged harassment was meted out at the hands of relatives of family members, court held that the offenses alleged against them were not at all attracted. Consequently, court quashed the proceedings against seven accused persons—who include the husband's parents, siblings, and extended family members—but rejected the husband's plea for quashing, allowing the case against him to continue before the Washim magistrate court.
