920.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 920 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4832 OF 2024 Pritam Mohan Rathod And Others VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra And Another ….. Mr. Dhawale Bhushan S, Advocate for Applicants Ms. Anuradha S. Mantri, APP for Respondent No.1 – State Mr. N. Y. Kingaonkar, Advocate for Respondent No.2 ….. CORAM : NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J. DATE : 17.06.2026 PER COURT : 1. This is an Application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’) for quashing FIR No.0328/2024, registered with Jawaharnagar Police Station, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, Taluka and District – Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 85, 115(2), 352, 351(2), 351(3), 351(4) and Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNS’) and consequential charge-sheet bearing No.168/2025 pending with the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, and the order taking cognizance and issuance of process by the learned Trial Court. 2. The aforesaid crime and criminal proceedings are registered on the report lodged by Respondent No.2, wife of Applicant No.1 and daughter-in-law of Applicant Nos.2 and 3, who are the father- in-law and mother-in-law, respectively of Respondent No.2. 1 2026:BHC-AUG:23718-DB 920.odt Respondent No.2 married to Applicant No.1 in the year 2021. After the marriage, she went to her matrimonial home at Mumbai. The Applicants used to tell her that, she was educated and she can do a job and earn money. In January – 2022, Respondent No.2 and Applicant - husband came to Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar for livelihood. The husband started harassing the Informant. The Applicants used to telephonically instigate the husband, and due to that, the husband used to beat and harass her. The harassment continued for a substantial period. The Informant gave birth to one baby girl from her husband. Eventually, the report was lodged, as there was no improvement in the behaviour of the Applicants. 3. The order dated 11.12.2024 shows that, the learned Advocate for the Applicants had withdrawn the Application to the extent of Applicant No.1 - husband. 4. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Applicants that, general and vague allegations are levelled against the Applicants by the Informant. Even accepting the FIR as it is, the allegations fall short of attracting the offence against the Applicants, who were admittedly residing separately. In the report, it is stated by the Informant that, the Applicants used to telephonically instigate the husband, which resulted in the harassment and on the other hand in the supplementary statement, it is stated by the Informant that, the Applicants stopped talking to her. Except the vague and general allegations, there is no material to connect the Applicants with the crime. He submits that, the Application be allowed to the extent of Applicant Nos.2 and 3. 2 920.odt 5. The Application is opposed by the learned Advocate for Respondent No.2. He submits that, the FIR shows the allegations against the in-laws that, they used to telephonically instigate the husband, who used to cause harassment to the Informant. The allegations against Applicant Nos.2 and 3 are specific, and therefore they should face the trial. It is submitted that, the Application be rejected. 6. It is submitted by the learned APP for Respondent No.1 – State that, there are statements of the relatives of the Informant, which support the case of prosecution, and therefore the Application may be rejected. 7. With the assistance of the learned Advocates for the parties, perused the papers on record. Undisputedly, for few months, the Informant resided at New Mumbai with her husband and in-laws. In the FIR and supplementary statement of the first Informant, there are no allegations of harassment by the in-laws to her during her stay with them at Mumbai. The FIR and the supplementary statement show and on which there is no dispute, is that the Informant and her husband came to Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar and started working. The only allegations against the father-in-law and mother-in-law are that, they used to telephonically instigate the husband and resultantly, the husband used to harass her. It is nowhere the case of Prosecution that, Applicant Nos.2 and 3 used to call the first Informant and cause harassment. Except this, there is no material against Applicant Nos.2 and 3. I find substance in the contention of the learned Advocate for the Applicants that, the allegations against Applicant Nos.2 and 3 are general, vague and 3 920.odt omnibus and making them to face the trial would amount to abuse of the process of law. Considering these undisputed aspects of the matter, in my considered view, this is a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 528 of BNSS. Hence, the following order : ORDER [I] To the extent of Applicant No.1, the Application is disposed of as withdrawn. [II] The Application is allowed to the extent of Applicant Nos.2 and 3 in terms of Prayer Clauses – ‘B’, ‘C-1’ and ‘C-3’. [NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.] Sameer/June-2026 4