APPLN-3509.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3509 OF 2024 1. Anuprit Rajendra Mohite (Husband) 2. Rajendra Dattatray Mohite (Father-in-law) 3. Suvarna Rajendra Mohite (Mother-in-law) 4. Rutuja Pravin Jadhav (Sister-in-law) 5. Pravin Chandrakant Jadhav (Brother-in-law) …Applicants Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. Shital Anuprit Mohite (Complainant/Wife) ...Respondents Mr. G. L. Deshpande, Advocate for the Applicants Ms. P. J. Bharad, APP for the Respondent/State Mr. R. V. Gore, Advocate for Respondent No.2 CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. DATED : 21st AUGUST, 2026 PER COURT :- 1. This application filed under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 the present Applicants are seeking quashment of chargesheet bearing No. 122/2024 registered as impugned RCC No. 276/2024 pending before the Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhokardan, Tal. Bhokardan, Dist. Jalna in respect of FIR No. 158/2024 registered with Kannada City Police Station, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar for offence punishable u/s. 498-A, 323, 504, 506, r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code (IPC). 2. It's the case of the Informant/Respondent No.2-Wife that her marriage with the Applicant No.1/husband was solemnized on 28/02/2023 as per Hindu rites and customs. It is alleged that prior to 2026:BHC-AUG:38653-DB APPLN-3509.odt the marriage, the Applicant No.3/mother-in-law enticed her with false assurances regarding her son’s package being Rs.21,00,000/-, along with promises of gold jewelry and a bungalow in Pune. At the time of marriage, the Complainant father provided household items, 12 Tolas of gold and silver jewelry, and a cash dowry of 7,00,000/- as ₹ demanded by the present Applicants/in-laws. However, shortly after the marriage, on 03/03/2023, allegedly an altercation occurred where the Applicant No.1/Husband verbally abused, slapped, and punched the Respondent No.2-Wife. 3. It is further alleged that after an initial period of about one and a half to two months, the Applicant No.3/mother-in-law and Applicant No. 2/father-in-law began subjecting the Informant to physical and mental harassment over petty domestic matters. Applicant Nos. 1 to 3 put forth an unlawful demand of 10,00,000/- as a condition for ₹ permitting her to reside in the matrimonial home, while keeping her starved, and mentally and physically harassing her. Furthermore, the Applicant No.4/sister-in-law and Application No.5/brother-in-law, used to visit weekly, subjecting her to verbal abuses causing mental distress, so also provoked the Applicants/in-law against her. Unable to endure the continuous harassment, she informed about the same to her aunt-Rekha Bhosale, who in turn informed about the said harassment to father-Rajendra Ramrao Bhosale, and other family members. The situation escalated on 15/08/2023 when the Informant APPLN-3509.odt went to Pune with permission to visit her ailing cousin, Tejal Jadhav. On 17/08/2023, when she requested her husband to pick her up, he refused to cohabit with her. Thereupon, she traveled to Satara to her sister-in-law’s residence, where Applicants gathered and expressed their refusal to maintain her in the matrimonial home unless their demand for money was fulfilled. They forcibly placed her in a car, transported her back to Pune, and handed her over to her aunt’s custody. Since 15/08/2023, the complainant has been residing separately from her matrimonial home at her parental home. Thus, on 07/04/2024, the offence was lodged by Respondent No.2 and chargesheet came to be filed. 4. The learned council for the Applicants summit that this is a case of deliberate 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 Respondent No.2 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 account of such baseless and vague allegations the Applicant cannot be tried. It's his further contention that statements of witnesses cannot be relied upon as they are not eyewitness to the said APPLN-3509.odt incident, so also the witnesses are extended family members of Respondent No.2 and her family. He drew attention of the court to inconsistencies in the statement of the Information and witnesses which makes the allegations improbable. He further submits that it cannot be said that elements of the offence alleged against the present applicants are made out. Finally he submits that there are no antecedents against the present Applicants. 5. The learned APP and Learned Counsel for information/Respondent No.2 strongly opposed grant of any relief to the applicants. They submit that from the bare perusal of investigation papers the offence alleged is made out against the present Applicants. The attention of the court is drawn to the evidence on record to substantiate that there is sufficient evidence on record to fulfill the elements of offence under section 498A of IPC. The learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2 further contends that at this stage the court has no power to appreciate the evidence on record under section 482 of CrPC, the same would be a matter of trial and at present stage the court only has to see if the offence, on face of record, is made by relying upon material available. It is also argued that the alleged inconsistency in the statements of witnesses cannot be gone into and considered at this stage. To support the above submission reliance is placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme court in case of Md. Allauddin Khan vs The State of Bihar and Ors reported in SLP.(Crl.) No. 1151 of 2018, State of M.P. vs AWADH APPLN-3509.odt KISHORE GUPTA AND OTHERS reported in (2004) 1 SCC 691, CHAND DHAWAN(Smt) vs JAWAHAR LAL AND OTHERS reported in (1992) 3 SCC 317. 6. Prima facie perusal of record shows that the marriage between Complainant/Respondent No.2-Wife and Applicant No.1/Husband was solemnised on 28/02/2023 in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals. The Respondent No.2, after attending her sick cousin in Pune, hurried to home Applicant No.4/Sister-in-law in satara and present Applicants expressed their displeasure and denied cohabiting with the Respondent No.2 and sent her back to Pune in her aunt's custody. Thereafter, the Respondent No.2 started living separately from matrimonial Home cohabiting with her parents from 15/08/2023. On 28/03/2024 a legal notice was sent to the Respondent No.2 for dissolution of marriage on grounds of mental harassment and cruelty by the Applicant No.1 and a reply to the said notice was sent by Respondent No.2 on 22/04/2024. Therefore, Respondent No.2 registered a complaint against the present Applicants and on 07/04/2024 crime came to be lodged. Thus, this indicates that there is a split in conjugal bond between Respondent No. 2-wife and Applicant No.1/husband, and crack in relations between Applicant Nos. 1 to 5/in-laws and Respondent No.2 some time after solemnisation of marriage of complainant/Respondent No.2, and in any case for a period of almost 1 years prior to lodging of report, the informant/Respondent No.2 is residing separately along with her APPLN-3509.odt parents. Further perusal of record indicates that there are specific allegations attributed against Applicant No.1 about he harassing and abusing Respondent No.2 on 03/03/2023 in an intoxicated state on an inquiry made by her with regards to Applicants drinking habits which indicates there is prima facie material against Applicant No.1 of he subjecting Respondent No.2 to cruelty and causing distress. 7. In so far as allegations against Applicant Nos. 2 to 5/in-law of they harassing the informant/Respondent No.2 is concerned, the record does not indicate any specific allegations against them. Allegations against Applicant Nos. 2 to 3 are vague and omnibus and only regarding they verbally abusing and causing physical and mental harassment. With regards to allegations attributed to Applicant Nos. 4 to 5/ in-law are concerned, they resided separately away from matrimonial home and used to visit every week and they verbally abused and provoked Applicant No. 2 to 3 against Respondent No.2. On the basis of these omnibus allegations as apparent from record, Applicants implication in the said crime is sought. 8. In so far as statements of witnesses recorded are concerned, the perusal of the same indicates specific allegations are levelled of physical and mental harassment being caused by Applicant No.1/Husband upon present Respondent No.2 and omnibus allegations of verbal abuses, physical and mentally cruelty are being attributed to APPLN-3509.odt Applicant Nos. 2 to 5 which are not sufficient to implicate the Applicants as culpable for acts alleged. So also, it's evident from record that there is variance in the statements recorded of witnesses and informant/Respondent No.2, which is not insignificant in order not to take the same into consideration. 9. At this stage it would be relevant to refer to the Judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court tendered by Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2 in case of Md. Allauddin Khan vs The State of Bihar and Ors reported in SLP.(Crl.) No. 1151 of 2018, State of M.P. vs AWADH KISHORE GUPTA AND OTHERS reported in (2004) 1 SCC 691, CHAND DHAWAN(Smt) vs JAWAHAR LAL AND OTHERS reported in (1992) 3 SCC 317 wherein it's held that the High Court possesses wide inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), but it must not exercise them to stifle a legitimate prosecution. In several judgments Hon’ble Supreme Court has referred to the tendency of roping the relatives/distant relatives of the husband in the complaints involving provisions under section 498A of Indian Penal Code. 10. Bare perusal of the investigation papers indicate that there are prima facie allegations against Applicant No.1/Husband of he causing mental and physical harassment to Informant/Respondent No.2. further perusal of record shows that Applicant Nos. 2 to 5/in-law are APPLN-3509.odt brought into the domain of this crime in order to cause harassment and distress. Prima facie this Court is of the view that involvement of the Applicant Nos. 2 to 5/in-law is done with malafide intentions. The aforesaid accusations, even if taken at face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute any offence as against Applicant Nos. 2 to 5/in-law. 11. In view of the above discussion, it becomes evident that the Applicant Nos. 2 to 5/in-law being close to the husband have been roped under Section 498A IPC without specific allegations, purely to settle personal vendetta. Allowing such proceedings to continue against Applicant Nos. 2 to 5/in-law would be a gross abuse of the courts process. Consequently, the FIR and consequential proceedings against the Applicant Nos. 2 to 5/in-law are liable to be quashed and set aside. As there is evidence against Applicant No1/Husband of offence committed under 498A of IPC as apparent from record, no relief can be granted in his favour. 12. The petition therefore stands partly allowed to the extent of Applicant nos. 2 to 5 in terms of prayer clauses "C” and “H”. 13. The above observations are prima facie in nature and shall not prejudice the Applicant No.1/Husband during the course of trial. (R. M. JOSHI, J.) Umesh