In the judgement of the case- Vaibhav Gopaldas Mundada (31) & 4 others v. State of Maharashtra & another, pronounced on February 20, 2026, Justice Pravin S. Patil at the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court has voiced his “opinion”, that after considering overall factual and legal position of this case, as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases of Preeti Gupta, Achin Gupta and Dara Lakshmi, it is clear that it is the case, where the Non-Applicant-2, Neha Vaibhav Mundada (30), on the basis of general allegations and by using criminal complaint as a weapon or as a tool of harassment to the Applicants, has lodged the complaint in this case. In the Court’s “opinion”, the applicants have placed on record sound, reasonable and indubitable material, which is relevant and impeccable allegations levelled against them.

 

The material, which is collected and produced before the HC, “in my opinion” is sufficient to reject and overrule the assertions contained in the complaint. Furthermore, the complainant/prosecution failed to rebut the chronological events pointed out by the Applicants in the matter as well as the documentary evidence produced in support of their submission. Hence, according to the Court, the continuation of trial would amount to abuse the process of Court and indulgence of this Court is necessary in the matter. At the instance of Non-applicant-2, Neha Mundada offence came to be registered against the applicants son and father(61) duo With the Police Station in the Wardha District for the offence punishable under section 498-A read with section 34 of IPC. The Applicants in the case are husband Vaibhav, Father-in-law Gopaldas (62), Mother-in-law Usha (61),Sister-in law Aarti Amit Lahoti (35) and her husband Amit Anilkumar Lahoti(37) .

 

The case arose from an unfortunate discord between the Applicants and the Non-Applicant-2, Neha, both of whom hail from well educated and respectable families, yet have levelled grave, sweeping and mutually destructive allegations against each other. The seriousness and tenor of the accusations coupled with their far-reaching civil and criminal consequences obliged this Court to proceed with utmost circumspection. Therefore, it required the High Court to undertake a careful and meticulous scrutiny of the pleading and the material placed on record, and to examine the minute particulars of the case before adjudicating this Criminal Application (APL) in accordance with law. The marriage between the couple was solemnised on June 15, 2020 at Mangrulpir in Washim District. Due to Covid, the couple did not shift to Pune immediately and resided at Wahim with the present Applicants. In the year 2021, the couple shifted to a rented premises in Pune and at that time, there was misunderstanding and difference of opinion on many counts and there were petty quarrels between them.

 

On January 15, 2024, the parents of the Applicant-husband had been to Pune in rented flat of the couple for courtesy visit. The parents noticed bitterness between the two and to settle the dispute, Pravin Kasat, the mediator in their marriage was called to use his good offices. After a conciliatory meeting in the house of Kasat, all was quiet for sometime and both of them started quarrelling again on various issues. Initially the husband lodged report at the Police Station, Hinjewadi, Pune, on February 20, 2024, that he was abused by the Non-applicant Wife Neha and there was likelihood of a false counter complaint by the wife against him. He left the rented premises and stayed at the flat of his friend. On the basis of the said report, a NCR (Non-Cognizable Report) was registered at the same Police Station. As per the Court, the Applicants have placed on record sufficient material by way of ‘chats’ on WhatsApp on the Mobile in the month of February, 2024, whereby the Non-Applicant wife accepted her guilt and apologised to the husband for her behaviour with him. Perusal of the material clearly established the fact that the wife had used unparliamentary language in her messages to the husband and it also showed that their relations were so much strained that there was no other way than to get separated from each other. The husband took the decision and filed divorce proceedings against Neha, on April 15, 2024. Furthermore, in pursuance of their mutual agreement, the wife went to Dr Jajoo, armed with ‘no objection’ of her husband for termination of pregnancy. In the light of the factual aspect, the allegations made by the wife Neha, in her police complaint of July 1, 2024 prima facie do not inspire confidence and seems to be made only with an intention to entangle all family members in the criminal offence. Apart from that, on bare perusal of this complaint, it is clear that no specific allegations are made by the wife, stating date, time and nature of harassment in the matter. The allegations made are general and omnibus in nature. The Clauses (a) and (b) of Explanation of section 498-A of IPC clearly contemplate that the acts complained of must be of such a gravity, as would demonstrate that, on account of physical and mental cruelty, the wife was driven to commit suicide or was subjected to a conduct of a similarly grave character. The allegations, therefore, must disclose specific instances of conduct of such intensity and seriousness. In this case, upon perusal of the complaint, no such specific or grave acts of cruelty are disclosed, so as to attract the ingredients of section 498-A IPC. According to the HC, in this case, the Applicants have placed sound, reasonable and indubitable material which is relevant and impeccable allegations levelled against them. The material which is collected and produced before the HC and the same, in the Court’s opinion is sufficient to reject and overrule the assertions contained in the complaint. The High Court has allowed the Criminal Application. The FIR registered with the Police Station, Pulgaon in Wardha District for the offence punishable under section498-A read with section 34 IPC was quashed and set aside by the High Court.