(1) 2criwp1308.23.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CR. WRIT PETITION NO. 1308 OF 2023 Swati Sanjay Patil ….Petitioner VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra And Anr …..Respondents None for the Petitioner. Mr. Pankaj Deokar, APP for the Respondent/State Mr. Sachinkumar Rajepandhre, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2 [through VC] CORAM : ABHAY J. MANTRI, J. DATE : 17th SEPTEMBER, 2026 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. The Petitioner, being the sister-in-law of Respondent No. 2, has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code [for short, ‘the Cr. P. C.’] to quash the FIR bearing No. 528/2022 registered at Vijapur Naka Police Station, Solapur (City) on 22-10-2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 34, 498-A, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code [for short, ‘the IPC’] and initiation of further proceedings pursuant to the said FIR. 2. No one appears for the Petitioner when the matter is called out either in the court hall or through VC mode. 1 of 5 VISHAL RAM KAMBLE Digitally signed by VISHAL RAM KAMBLE Date: 2026.09.19 15:47:31 +0530 (2) 2criwp1308.23.odt 3. Heard learned APP for Respondent/State and Advocate for Respondent No. 2 and perused the record. 4. At the outset, it appears that on 22/10/2022, the informant/Respondent No. 2 lodged the report against the Petitioner and three others alleging that they have subjected her to cruelty on account of demand of dowry. Based on her complaint, an offence was registered against the Petitioner and three others as referred to above. Aggrieved by the same, the Petitioner has preferred this Petition. 5. The learned APP, on instructions, submitted that, during the pendency of this Petition, the charge sheet has been filed before the learned Trial Court. 6. The learned APP and Advocate for Respondent No. 2 strongly oppose the Petition, contending that there are specific allegations against the Petitioner that she taunted and insulted her on several occasions without any reason. Therefore, she is not entitled to the relief as prayed and urges dismissal of the Petition. 7. At the outset, it appears that the Petitioner is a married sister-in-law of the Respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 married Accused No. 1, Sadanand, in December 2014. She resided with Accused No. 1 till July 2021. Thereafter, she left the house with her father and lodged the FIR. The Petitioner and Respondent No. 2 never 2 of 5 (3) 2criwp1308.23.odt lived together. 8. On perusal of the FIR, it appears that allegations against the present Petitioner are vague, omnibus, and general in nature. The FIR contains no specific allegations against the Petitioner. The only allegation against her is that she taunted and insulted her without any reason. Still, no specific allegation appears that the Petitioner committed any act constituting an offence under Section 498-A of the IPC. Further, the FIR does not show the date, time, place, or manner in which the Petitioner committed the alleged harassment. Mere vague and omnibus allegations that she was instigating Accused No.1 Sadanand, without disclosing any specific role played by her, or that she taunted and insulted her, cannot be said to establish that she had subjected Respondent No. 2 to cruelty on account of demand of dowry or that she caused harassment to her with a view to forcing her to meet any unlawful demand or demand for any property or valuable security to attract the provisions of Section 498-A of the IPC. Apart from that, Respondent No. 2 and her husband, i.e., accused No. 1 Sadanand, lived in Mumbai, and the Petitioner lives in Pune. 9. Moreover, the Hon'ble Supreme Court time and again in various judgments such as “Dara Lakshmi Narayan & others Vs State of Telangana and another1, Geeta Mehrotra and Another Vs State of 1 2021 SCC OnLine SC 3682 3 of 5 (4) 2criwp1308.23.odt U.P. and Another2, and Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and Others Vs the State of Bihar and Others 3 has held that “merely making the general allegations that the accused persons were involved for physical and mental torture of the complainant without any specific allegations indicating their active involvement or mentioning the single incident against them as also the fact as to how they could be motivated the demand of dowry when they are only related to husband as brother or sister and therefore quashed the FIR.” In the case at hand, the learned APP and Advocate for Respondent No. 2 did not point out anything to show that Respondent No. 2 was subjected to cruelty at the hands of the Petitioner to attract Section 498-A of the IPC against her. 10. Thus, in my view, it would not be appropriate to continue the proceedings before the learned Trial Court against the present Petitioner. Continuing the proceedings against the Petitioner would amount to an abuse of the process of law and would not serve the ends of justice. Therefore, in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. / 528 of the BNSS, it would be appropriate to quash the FIR and proceedings pending against her pursuant to the said FIR. 2 2012(10) SCC 741 3 (2022) 6 SCC 599 4 of 5 (5) 2criwp1308.23.odt 11. As a result, the Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b). 12. Accordingly, the FIR bearing No. 528/2022 registered at Vijapur Naka Police Station, Solapur (City) on 22-10-2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 34, 498-A, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code [for short, ‘the IPC’] and initiation of further proceedings pursuant to the said FIR are hereby quashed and set aside. 13. The Petition is disposed of. [ABHAY J. MANTRI, J. ] VishalK/2criwp1308.23.odt 5 of 5