IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1686 OF 2024 1. Sunita Baburao khadekar 2. Baburao S/o Rambahu Khadekar 3. Dadasaheb S/o Baburao Khadekar 4. Kasabai W/o Parmeshwar Korde 5. Parmeshwar S/o Pundlik Korde 6. Sonali W/o Ganesh Veer 7. Ganesh S/o Trimbak Veer 8. Rekha W/o Kanhu Veer 9. Kanhu S/o Ambadas Veer……….…Applicants Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. Bhagyshri W/o Ankush Khadekar ………. Respondents Mr.U.S. Patil, Advocate for Applicants Mr. G.O. Wattamwar, APP for the State Mr. M.C. Kochar, Appointed Advocate for Respondent No.2 CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. DATE : 31 July, 2026 PER COURT :- 1. At the outset it needs to be recorded that proceedings against applicant nos. 1 to 3 are dismissed as withdrawn. 2. By the way of this application filed under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 the present applicants are seeking quashment of impugned RCC No. 372/2023 pending before the Ld. Judicial Magistrate 1 of 5 First Class, Bhokardan, Tal. Bhokardan, Dist. Jalna in respect of FIR No. 287/2023 register with Hasanabad Police Station, Tal. Bhokardan, Dist. Aurangabad for offence punishable u/s. 498-A, 323, 504, 506, r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, so also prayed for quashing of Order dated 03/11/2023 passed by Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class as well as Charges framed dated 21/03/2024 in the said proceedings therein. 3. It's the case of the information/Respondent No.2-Wife that her marriage with Ankush Baburao Khadekar-Husband was solemnized on 28/04/2022 at Hasanabad, District Jalna, whereafter she commenced cohabitation in a joint family with her husband and petitioners/in-laws. It is alleged that after one month of marriage, the husband and co-habiting petitioners/in-laws subjected her to physical abuse, food deprivation, and death threats over an unlawful demand of ₹3,00,000/- for purchasing a four-wheeler car. Similar allegations of harassment and reiteration of the demand were also alleged against non-cohabiting extended applicants/in-laws residing separately in Karmad, Golatgaon, and Apatgaon during their occasional visits to the matrimonial home. 4. Distressed by the Persistent mental and physical abuse, the Complainant left the matrimonial home on 19/11/2022 to reside with her parents. Following unsuccessful private mediation efforts, she approached the Women Complaint Redressal Center, Jalna, in July 2023. However, failing in six rounds of counseling to resolve the dispute, the Complainant lodged a written complaint at Police Station Hasanabad on 11/10/2023 upon receiving a letter from the Redressal Center, which led to the registration of the present criminal proceedings. The investigation is completed and a charge-sheet is filed. The Learned Trial Court framed 2 of 5 Charges against the Applicants vide Exhibit-29. 5. The learned council for the applicants summit that this is a case of false implication, so also there is delay of almost 1 year in lodging the first information report. For want of any allegations being attributable to present applicants that they physically and mentally harassed 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 draws 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. Finally he submits that there are no antecedents against the present applicants. 6. The learned APP and The learned Counsel for information/Respondent No.2 strongly oppose grant of any relief to the applicants. 7. Prima facie perusal of record shows that the marriage between Informant/Respondent No.2 and Husband-Ankush Khadekar solemnised was on 28/04/2022. The informant/respondent No.2 left matrimonial Home on 19/11/2022 and afterwards multiple sessions to conciliate between Respondent No.2 along with her family and Applicants were held which were unsuccessful due to temperamental difference. Therefore, on 10/10/2023, informant/Respondent No.2 registered a complaint against the Applicants in Complaint Redressal Centre, Jalna. 3 of 5 Thus, this indicates that there is a crack in relation between respondent No. 2, her husband and petitioners-in-laws after solemnisation of marriage of informant/Respondent No.2, and in any case for a period of 1 years prior to lodging of report, the informant/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. In so far as allegations against extended Applicants-in-law harassing the informant/Respondent No.2 is concerned, the record indicates that they reside separately distant from matrimonial home and there are no specific allegations against them for causing harassment to the informant/Respondent No.2. So also, statements of witnesses recorded are not sufficient to implicate the Applicants-in-law culpable for acts alleged. The allegations made against the applicant-in-laws 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. 9. At this stage, it would be relevant to refer to the judgement of the Honorable Supreme Court in case of Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P. [(2012) 10 SCC 741], Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar [(2022) 6 SCC 599], Preeti Gupta & Anr. v. State of Jharkhand [(2010) 7 SCC 667] which states that relatives which are residing separately cannot be forced to face trial under Section 498A IPC based on vague and sweeping allegations. Hence, the proceedings against Applicants are bad in law and unsustainable and judgement of the Honorable Supreme Court in case of Anand Kumar Mohatta vs State (NCT of Delhi), 2019 11 SCC 706, State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal, (1992 Supp (1) 4 of 5 SCC 335), Sanjay Kumar Rai vs State of Uttar Pradesh, (2021) SCC OnLine Sc 367 in which observations are made with regards to quashment of first information Report and proceedings even after Charges are framed, if the trial continued would amount to abuse of courts process. 10. Bare perusal of the investigation papers indicate that Applicants-in- law 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 Applicants-in-laws is done with malafide intentions. The aforesaid accusations, even if taken at face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute any offence. 11. It is evident from the above discussion, that the applicants being relatives of the husband have been roped in under Section 498A IPC without specific allegations, purely to settle personal scores. 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. 12. The petition therefore stands partly allowed to the extent of Applicant nos. 4 to 10 in terms of prayer clause "A” , “A-a” and “A-b” 13. Fees of the appointed counsel is quantified to Rs.10,000/-. (R. M. JOSHI, J.) dyb 5 of 5