928-APPLN-4400-23.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4400 OF 2023 1. Chandrashekhar Shaligram Chaudhari (Husband) Age: 42 Years, Occu: Agra. 2. Shaligram Gambhir Chaudhari (Father in Law) Age: 67 Years, Occu: Agril. 3. Suman Shaligram Chaudhari (Mother in Law) Age: 65 Years, Occu: Household, All R/o. Raypur, TaI. Raver, Dist. Jalgaon 4. Swati Rupesh Patil (Sister in Law) Age: 31 Years, Occu: Service 5. Rupesh Prakash Patil (Husband of Sister in Law) Age: 34 Years, Occu: Service Both R/o. Flat No.7-A, Second Floor, Shrikrishna Icon. Ravet, Pune. ..APPLICANT VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through its Muktainagar, Police Station, Tal. Muktainagar, Dist. Jalgaon. 2. Vasundhara Chandrashekhar Chaudhari Age: 33 Years, Occu: Household, R/o. At present Uchanda, Tal. Muktainagar, Dist. Jalgaon. ..RESPONDENTS .... Mr. V.B. Patil, Advocate for applicants Mr. S.N. Morampalle, A.P.P. for respondent no.1 - State .... CORAM : RAJNISH R. VYAS, J. DATE : 08th APRIL, 2026 1 / 8 2026:BHC-AUG:15156-DB 928-APPLN-4400-23.odt PER COURT : . This is an application at the instance of all the accused, challenging the registration of F.I.R., final report, order taking cognizance and the proceedings. The F.I.R. No.373/2022 dated 18th November, 2022 was registered with Muktainagar Police Station, Dist.Jalgaon for offences punishable under section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code at the behest of Respondent No.2.. 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the applicants, on instructions, states that he will not press the application for Applicant No.1 / husband and be permitted to withdraw the same. 3. Criminal application as regards Applicant No.1 / Chandrashekhar Shaligram Chaudhari is disposed of as withdrawn. 4. Challenging the F.I.R. and consequent initiation of prosecution, learned counsel for the applicants has contended that remaining applicants are father-in-law, mother-in-law, sister-in-law and husband of sister-in-law of Respondent No.2 / informant respectively, against whom only vague and general allegations are made by Respondent No.2. He submitted that considering the fact that there is delay in lodging the F.I.R. and prior to filing of same several proceedings were initiated, it can be said that criminal law 2 / 8 928-APPLN-4400-23.odt was set in motion not to punish the guilt but to pressurize the applicants. He, therefore, prayed for allowing the application. 5. Per contra, learned A.P.P. submitted that there is statement of independent witness, who supports the version advanced by Respondent No.2, and therefore, credibility of the said witness can only be tested during the course of trial. He requested that commenting anything on the version of the independent witness would amount to conducting mini trial, which is not at all permissible. He, therefore, prayed for rejection of the application. 6. None appeared for Respondent No.2, though served. 7. With the help of respective counsels, I have gone through the record of the case and have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced. 8. The F.I.R. is lodged at the behest of Respondent No.2, who has alleged that on 01st January, 2011 her marriage was solemnized with Accused No.1 as per rites and ceremonies. Her parents had given streedhan in the form of Rs.7 lakhs cash and 20 tola gold. She has stated that after marriage, she started residing with the accused persons. Respondent No.2 was blessed with a child. 3 / 8 928-APPLN-4400-23.odt 9. According to the F.I.R., initially for six months she was treated properly, but thereafter on trifle reasons, in-laws used to pass comment by saying that she does not know how to work and they could have secured more dowry. When the informant had narrated the said incident to her parents and brother, they asked her to keep patience. Respondent No.2, therefore, ignored the aforesaid incidence. 10. On 18th February, 2022 when the child was born, Respondent No.2 thought that accused persons would mend their ways, but it did not happen. All the accused persons by sitting together used to discuss and direct Respondent No.2 to perform various works at the same time. They also used to pass comment that the informant is slow at work and does not know how to complete the work. On that count she was subjected to mental harassment. 11. It was also alleged in the F.I.R. that the accused persons used to ask Respondent No.2 to call her parents and bring amount of Rs.25 lakhs for purchasing agricultural field. Again Respondent No.2 informed the aforesaid fact to her parents, who ignored it by advancing the reason that accused persons might not be serious about it. Respondent No.2 was further advised by her parents to live life with compromising attitude. She further alleged that on trifle reasons, on different occasions, quarrels took place between them. 4 / 8 928-APPLN-4400-23.odt 12. According to the F.I.R. on 27th September, 2018 she was driven out of the house by the accused persons and in spite of it accused persons used to visit the house of parents of Respondent No.2 and abuse her and demand custody of the child. 13. Respondent No.2 / informant alleged that on 30th October, 2022 when she was at her parent’s house, a meeting was arranged for settling the matter, at which time the husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law told that they would not permit Respondent No.2 to cohabit and had threatened that custody of the child would be taken forcibly. When Respondent No.2 demanded the original documents pertaining to her education and gold ornaments of 20 tola, she was abused by her husband. The father-in-law and mother-in-law had specifically told her that they would not permit her to reside and also demanded Rs.25 lakhs for purchasing agricultural field. It was alleged that accused persons not only demanded custody of the child, but had also asked Respondent No.2 to agree for divorce. It was also alleged that on one occasion, the husband of Respondent No.2 tried to take forcible custody of the child, but since alarm was raised and due to intervention of one Kishor Chintaman Patil, the matter was settled. The accused persons had threatened Respondent No.2 and her brother to kill. 14. It is in this background, the criminal law was set in motion and investigation was carried out, which resulted into filing of final report. As 5 / 8 928-APPLN-4400-23.odt pointed out by learned counsel for the applicants, Respondent No.2 has filed proceeding under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, bearing No. 18 of 2019 before the jurisdictional Court. Respondent No.2 has also filed proceeding under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure i.e. Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 8 of 2022 before the jurisdictional Magistrate. He brought to my notice the fact that even divorce proceeding bearing no. 137 of 2022 dated 29th March, 2022 was filed by Respondent No.2 against the husband before the competent Court of law. Finally he submitted that even the proceedings in the year 2023 under Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act praying for maintenance was also filed against the husband by the wife. According to him, if the aforesaid events are taken into consideration in the light of the fact that the F.I.R. was lodged on 18th November, 2022, whereas Respondent No.2 is residing separately since 27th September, 2018, it would be clear that criminal law was misused. 15. There is a prima facie strength in the argument made by learned counsel for the applicants. It is on 27th September, 2018 Respondent No.2 was driven out of the house, whereas the F.I.R. was lodged on 18th November, 2022. Though delay in all cases would not be fatal for prosecution, but the fact remains that delay is unexplained and in between the said period various proceedings are filed by the wife against the husband. It is thus necessary to consider the delay in the aforesaid background and in the light of allegations 6 / 8 928-APPLN-4400-23.odt made in the final report. Perusal of the allegations made in the F.I.R. and final report would reveal that it is alleged by the informant that present applicants used to harass her mentally and physically on trifle reasons and thereafter demanded Rs.25 Lakhs for purchasing agricultural field. The material on record clearly shows that the said allegations are bereft of any specific details regarding time, period, etc. General and omnibus allegations would not be enough to attract the ingredients of offences registered. 16. It is worth noting that the other allegations are against the husband, whose application is already not pressed by the counsel. Therefore, commenting anything upon the role played by the husband would not be necessary since the proceedings are still pending against him. 17. Contention of learned A.P.P. that there is independent witness, who corroborate the version of Respondent No.2, and therefore, the proceedings may not be quashed, cannot be taken into consideration for the reason that the witness viz. Jitendra Himmatrao More though has stated about ill-treatment, but fact remains that in the said statement also omnibus, general and vague allegations are made, so far present applicants are concerned. His next contention that the quality of statement of said witness can be tested during the course of trial, suffice it to say that prima facie the statement of said witness fails to make out any case against the present 7 / 8 928-APPLN-4400-23.odt applicants. The powers under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure are to be exercised in the interest of justice. Allowing the prosecution to proceed against the present applicants in the aforesaid background would not be in the interest of justice. In that view of the matter, following order is passed :- ORDER (I) Criminal application is partly allowed. (II) Criminal application is disposed of as withdrawn so far as Applicant No.1 / Chandrashekhar Shaligram Chaudhari is concerned. (III) Criminal application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses [B], [B-1] and [C-2] qua, Applicant No.2 / Shaligram Gambhir Chaudhari, Applicant No.3 / Suman Shaligram Chaudhari, Applicant No. 4 / Swati Rupesh Patil and Applicant No. 5 / Rupesh Prakash Patil. (IV) Trial be proceeded against Applicant No.1 / Chandrashekhar Shaligram Chaudhari ( RAJNISH R. VYAS, J. ) SSD 8 / 8