IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 49 OF 2022 1. Ashish Prakash Mahajan 2. Prakash Bhimrao Mahajan 3. Anil Bhimrao Mahajan 4. Sau. Vandana Dnyaneshwar Mahajan 5. Paresh Anil Mahajan 6. Sau. Poonam Sandeep Mahajan 7. Dnyaneshwar Bhimrao Mahajan 8. Ganesh Prakash Mahajan 9. Sau. Meena Rajendra Gite 10. Sarala Himmat Mahajan ...Applicants VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. Sau. Jayashree Ashish Mahajan ...Respondents ... Mr. M. M. Bhokarikar, Advocate for Applicants Mr. A. R. Kale, APP for Respondent – State Mr. S. T. Mahajan, Advocate for Respondent No. 2 ... CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. DATE :03rd SEPTEMBER 2026 PER COURT :- 1. After hearing Learned Counsels for both sides and when this Court has shown disinclination to grant relief to Applicant Nos.1 to 3, Learned Counsel for the Applicants, on instructions, seeks withdrawal of Application qua Applicant Nos. 1 to 3. Crim.Appln.49/2022.odt 1 of 5 2026:BHC-AUG:41825-DB 2. This Application is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the present Applicants seek quashment of First Information Report in Crime No. 0507/2021 dated 24.11.2021 registered with Amalner Police Station, District Jalgaon for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”). 3. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant, Jayshree Ashish Mahajan, married Applicant No. 1 (Ashish Prakash Mahajan) on 29/05/2019 as per Hindu rites and resided in a joint family at Chahardi, Taluka Chopda. Approximately two months after the marriage, when the complainant's father visited her matrimonial home, Applicant No. 1 along with Applicant No. 2 (father-in-law) and Applicant No. 3 (uncle-in-law) demanded 5,000,000 to ₹ purchase a goods transport vehicle. Upon the father's expression of financial inability to meet the demand, Applicant Nos. 1 through 10 excluding the mother-in-law subjected the complainant to physical assault, verbal abuse, and continuous mental harassment, while accused No. 10 routinely criticized her household work and marital customs. 4. Due to ongoing ill-treatment, the complainant sought shelter at her maternal uncle’s residence in Amalner on 10/11/2020. On 02/10/2021 at approximately 11:00 AM, accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 7 visited her uncle's house, where they verbally abused both the complainant and her uncle and issued criminal threats regarding her cohabitation. Consequently, the complainant lodged a formal written complaint at the Amalner Police Station on 24/11/2021 against the ten named accused family members for physical and mental cruelty. 5. The learned council for the applicants summit that this is a case of false Crim.Appln.49/2022.odt 2 of 5 implication, so also there is delay of 1 year in lodging the first information report. For want of any allegations being attributable to present applicants of they physically and mentally harassing the complainant, the prosecution has to show that that is sufficient evidence on record in order to indicate that complainant has suffered physical and mental abuse at the whims of present applicants. He drew the attention of the court to the FIR and charge sheet on record to contend that the allegations against the applicant are vague and on bases of such omnibus and vague allegations the applicant cannot be tried. He further submits that it cannot be said that elements of the offence alleged against the present applicants are fulfilled. 6. 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 under Section 498A of IPC being made out. The attention of the court is drawn to reply filed by Respondent No.2 to contend that there are multiple proceedings filed against present Applicants which shows the genuinity of proceedings and complicity of the Present Applicants in causing the acts alleged against them. 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, so also the statements of witnesses recorded indicate harassment caused are sufficient to implicate the present Application for offence alleged. 7. It's undisputed that the marriage between complainant/Respondent No.2 and Applicant No.1 was solemnised on 29/05/2019. The respondent No.2 left matrimonial Home on Bitstream Charter10/11/2020 and started residing at her maternal uncle's house. Thereafter, on 24/11/2021, complainant/Respondent No.2 registered a FIR against the present applicants. Thus, this indicates that there is a crack in relation between respondent No. 2, Crim.Appln.49/2022.odt 3 of 5 and Present Applicants some time after solemnisation of marriage of Respondent No.2 and applicant No.1 and in any case for a period of 1 years prior to lodging of report, the Respondent No.2 is residing separately. There is a delay of almost 1 year in lodging of the FIR as rightly argued by learned counsel for the Applicant. 8. Prima facie perusal of the record shows that all of the Applicant Nos. 4 to 10 are residing separately distant from the matrimonial home of Respondent No.2 and there are no specific, but generalized, omnibus and arbitrary allegations against them of causing mental and physical harassment to the Respondent No. 2 when they visited matrimonial home. 9. 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, Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar, (2022) 6 SCC 599 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. 10. In so far as statements of witnesses recorded are concerned, the same is not sufficient to implicate the applicants and hold them culpable for acts alleged. The allegations made against the present Applicants are purely Omnibus as they lack specific overt acts and there is absence of evidence of physical and mental cruelty being caused to the Respondent No.2. 11. It is well-settled that a criminal prosecution under Section 498A of the IPC cannot be sustained against family members on the basis of general and uncorroborated assertions without concrete details regarding time, place, and individual participation. Crim.Appln.49/2022.odt 4 of 5 12. Bare perusal of the investigation papers indicate that present Applicants are brought into sweep of this crime in order to cause harassment and distress. Prima facie this Court is of the view that involvement of the present Applicants is done with malafide intentions only because they are related to Applicant No.1/Husband of the Complainant. On the basis of such allegations, if the present Applicants are called upon to undergo rigors of trial, it would lead to miscarriage of Justice. Therefore, the aforesaid accusations, even if taken at face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute any offence. 13. It is evident from the above discussion, that the applicants being relatives of the Applicant No.1/Husband have been roped in under Section 498A IPC without specific allegations, purely to settle personal vendetta. Allowing such proceedings to continue would be a gross abuse of the process of the court. Consequently, the FIR and consequential proceedings against the applicants are liable to be quashed and set aside. 14. In view of above, application qua Applicant No. 1 to 3 stands dismissed as withdrawn and application qua Applicant Nos. 4 to 10 stands allowed in terms of prayer clauses ‘b’. (R. M. JOSHI, J.) Malani Crim.Appln.49/2022.odt 5 of 5