cri.appln.1385.23.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1385 OF 2023 1. Kamlabai Jeevanrao Patil 2. Dushant S/o Jeevanrao Patil 3. Shalini W/o Apparao Biradar 4.Apparao S/o Pandharinath Biradar ...Applicants Versus 1.The State of Maharashtra 2.Shital W/o Jaiwant Patil ...Respondents ... Mr. S. N. Janakwade, Advocate for applicant Ms. P. J. Bharad, APP for Respondent-State Mr. C. M. Ghodake, Advocate for Respondent No.2 (Appointed) Mr. J. S. Jain, Advocate for Respondent No. 2 (Discharged) ... CORAM : R.M. JOSHI, J DATE : SEPTEMBER 08, 2026 P. C. : 1. By this application, the applicants seek quashment of First Information Report (FIR) Crime No. 0064/2023, registered at the Nilanga Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, along with Charge-sheet No. 53/2023 and the subsequent proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nilanga, District Latur, bearing RCC No. 0360/2023. 2. According to the prosecution, the marriage between Applicant No. 1's son, Jaiwant Jivanrao Patil, and Respondent No. 2 was solemnized 2026:BHC-AUG:42416-DB cri.appln.1385.23.odt on 01.02.2015 as per Hindu rites and rituals. The father of Respondent No. 2 incurred substantial marriage expenses, provided household articles, and gold ornaments. After the marriage, the complainant cohabited with her husband and in-laws in District Bidar, where she was treated well for about one year. Thereafter, Applicant No. 1 allegedly began subjecting her to physical and mental harassment over domestic issues. The accused persons also demanded a dowry of Rs. 5 lakh from her father to purchase agricultural land for Applicant No. 2 i.e. the brother-in-law of Respondent No. 2, Dushant Jivanrao Patil. Furthermore, the complainant alleges that Applicant No. 3 i.e. sister-in-law, Shalini and her husband i.e. Applicant No. 4 frequently visited the matrimonial home in Bidar, repeatedly subjected her to verbal abuse, insisted on the illegal demand of dowry, and actively provoked her husband and Applicant No. 1 to ill-treat her. Even after the complainant’s father paid Rs. 3 lakh toward purchasing agricultural land, the in-laws allegedly continued to harass, abuse, and physically assault the complainant continuously between 10.05.2016 and 03.03.2023. Owing to the non-fulfillment of the remaining financial demands and alleged threats to her life, the complainant lodged the present FIR against her in-laws. 3. The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the allegations in the FIR vague and that these proceedings have been instituted solely to harass the applicants. It is contended that the present application cri.appln.1385.23.odt arises from a personal vendetta and was maliciously filed following property disputes, wherein the husband of Respondent No. 2 sought to deny Applicant No. 1’s 1/4th share in the ancestral property, leading to the filing of a civil partition suit, namely O.S. No. 51/2022. It is further contended that the applicants reside separately and that the FIR fails to attribute any specific role or dates of the alleged ill-treatment to the present applicants. The statements recorded during the investigation are stereotyped and lack independent verification. Additionally, there is an unexplained and inordinate delay in lodging the complaint. The learned counsel for the applicants placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v.s Bhajan Lal, (1992) SCC (cri) 426. 4. The Learned APP and the counsel for Respondent No. 2 / Informant vehemently opposed the grant of any relief to the present applicants. It was submitted that the registration of the FIR is well- supported by concrete and material evidence on record. The allegations in the FIR clearly disclose a prima facie case of persistent physical violence and mental cruelty, the veracity of which can only be adjudicated upon at the stage of trial. As regards the delay in lodging the FIR, it was explained that the same was on account of genuine social pressure, fear, and sincere efforts made by the complainant to reconcile the matrimonial dispute. Furthermore, the applicants’ plea of separate residence involves disputed cri.appln.1385.23.odt questions of fact and the same must be substantiated through evidence during the course of the trial. Learned counsel for respondent no. 2 further submitted that the civil property case bearing O.S. No. 51/2022 does not stop a criminal case for cruelty and harassment under Section 498-A of the IPC. In fact, the civil court’s decision confirming the husband's ¼ th share only proves that there is deep hostility between the parties. The informant has been suffering from harassment from 2016 to 2023, which encompasses property disputes, police complaints, and the present court proceedings. Therefore, granting any protection to the applicants would cause serious harm to the informant and defeat the ends of justice. 5. Perusal of the documents placed on record reveals that the allegations in the present FIR are vague, general, and omnibus against the applicants, failing to attribute any specific overt act, date, or distinct role to the applicants. Furthermore, the criminal complaint was lodged shortly after the initiation of the civil partition suit, clearly demonstrating that the criminal prosecution is an afterthought arising out of property dispute. Placing reliance upon the settled principles in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (supra), where criminal proceedings are manifestly attended with malafides and instituted out of sheer malice and spite, allowing them to continue would amount to a clear abuse of the process of law. Furthermore, it is relevant to note that Applicants No. 3 and 4 reside separately and do not cri.appln.1385.23.odt share the same household. As per the settled position of law, relatives residing separately cannot be forced to face trial based on vague and sweeping allegations, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P. (2012) 10 SCC 741 and Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar (2022) 6 SCC 599. 6. In view of the above, application allowed in terms prayer clauses B, B1, B2, and B-1-a. 7. The fees of the appointed counsel are quantified at Rs. 10,000/- which shall be paid by the High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee, Aurangabad. (R. M. JOSHI, J.) Malani