IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1958 OF 2024 1. Ruchita w/o Amitkumar Morankar 2. Amitkumar Rangnath Morankar 3. Vrushali Yogesh Pingale 4. Yogesh s/o Prakash Pingale 5. Kajal s/o Prasad Kotkar 6. Prasad s/o Balkrishna Kotkar ...Applicants VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. Lalit Rajendra Kele ...Respondents ... Mr. S. P. Tiwari, Advocate for Applicants Mr. A. R. Kale, APP for Respondent – State Mr. Dhanajay Shinde, Advocate for Respondent No. 2 (Appointed) ... CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. DATE : 19.08.2026 PER COURT :- 1. This Application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the present Applicants seek quashment of First Information Report in Crime No. 0133/2024, dated 21.04.2024 registered with Parola Police Station, Taluka Parola, District Jalgaon for offences punishable under Sections 304B, 306, 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”) as against the Applicants. APPLN-1958-2024 498A quashing.odt 1 of 6 2026:BHC-AUG:38162-DB 2. The case of the prosecution is that the Respondent No.2 being Informant has lodged the FIR thereby alleging that the present Applicants have caused the death of his sister. His sister named Roshani married Kundan Arun Amrutkar on 10.03.2019 at Parola as per rites and rituals. After marriage, she went to Parola at her husband’s place for cohabitation. He further states that his sister was blessed with two children out of the said wedlock. Since last one year, her Husband and her parents-in-law along with Applicants in the present case, have demanded the amount of Rs.15 Lakhs as a dowry for purchasing truck for doing the business and on that count the husband and his parents along with the present Applicants have tortured her physically and mentally. Coupled with these and other allegations, the present FIR came to be lodged. 3. The Learned Counsel for the Applicants states that, the Applicant No.2 is working in the Xoriant Solutions Pvt. Ltd, as a "Senior Test Engineer" since 17.12.2014 and is residing in Pune along with his family. The copy of appointment letter dated 28.04.2015 is placed on record. The Applicant No.5 is working in Precise Chemipharma Pvt. Ltd. as a "Packing Officer" since 01.12.2017 and is residing in Nashik along with his family. The copy of appointment letter dated 01.12.2017 is placed on record. Therefore, the present Applicants are residing separately from the APPLN-1958-2024 498A quashing.odt 2 of 6 matrimonial house of the deceased sister of the Informant. 4. Further, the Learned Counsel for the Applicants contended that the entire family has been falsely implicated by the Respondent No.2/Informant in the present FIR, particularly no such offence as alleged by the Informant had taken place. There is no allegation against the present Applicants about any ill-treatment and except for general allegations that have been made against the Applicants. There are no specific allegations attributable to the present Applicants to constitute offence under Section 498A of IPC eventually leading to offence under Sections 304B and 306 of IPC. He further submits that as such there is no prima facie evidence to show that the Applicants had mens rea to show that they instigated, intentionally aided or abetted the suicide of the deceased sister of the Informant. Therefore, he submits that the offence under Section 306 of IPC is not made out. 5. Learned APP and Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2 submits that the application for quashing deserves to be dismissed, as the FIR clearly shows prima facie case of cruelty and dowry demands under Section 498A of IPC being made out. Moreover, it has led to the suicide of the sister of the Informant/Respondent No. 2 amounting to dowry death under Section 304B of IPC as she was APPLN-1958-2024 498A quashing.odt 3 of 6 subjected to cruelty soon before her death as well as it amounts to abetment of suicide under Section 306 of IPC. It is further submitted that the FIR does not contain mere general statements, but explicitly details specific acts of harassment, physical assault. It is further argued that claim of the Applicants living separately does not absolve them from the offence, as they actively acted together causing cruelty and eventually leading to suicide of the sister of the Informant. 6. Bare perusal of the record shows that all of the Applicants are residing separately distant from the matrimonial home and there are no specific allegations against them of causing harassment to the sister of the Informant/Respondent No. 2. It is well-settled that a criminal prosecution under Section 498A of IPC cannot be sustained against family members on the basis of general and uncorroborated assertions without concrete details regarding time, place, and individual participation. Furthermore, the materials on record demonstrate that the Applicants reside separately at a distance from the matrimonial house. In the absence of evidence demonstrating active involvement in day-to-day domestic affairs, implicating relatives who reside separately merely by virtue of their relationship constitutes an abuse of the process of law. APPLN-1958-2024 498A quashing.odt 4 of 6 7. At this stage, it would be relevant to refer to the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P., (2012) 10 SCC 741, Preeti Gupta & Anr. v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 667, which states that relatives which are residing separately cannot be forced to face trial under Section 498A of IPC based on vague and sweeping allegations. On the same point, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment in the case of Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar, (2022) 6 SCC 599, while referring to K Subba Rao v. State of Telangana, (2018) 14 SCC 452 observed thus: “16. Recently, in K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana 11, it was also observed that: (SCC p. 454, para 6) "6. ... The courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out." (emphasis supplied) . In the facts of the case, this Court is of the view that the allegations made in the FIR against the present Applicants are vague and lack specific overt acts and hence FIR and consequent proceedings are liable to be quashed and set aside. On the basis of such allegations, if the Applicants are called upon to undergo rigors of trial, it would lead to miscarriage of Justice. APPLN-1958-2024 498A quashing.odt 5 of 6 8. In view of the above, application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses ‘B’ and ‘B-1’. 9. Fees of the Learned appointed Counsel for Informant/Respondent No.2 is quantified at Rs. 10,000/- to be paid by High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee, Aurangabad. (R. M. JOSHI, J.) Umesh APPLN-1958-2024 498A quashing.odt 6 of 6