- 1 - criappln3364.24.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 930 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3364 OF 2024 1. Dinesh Sitaram Jonwal 2. Lalita Sitaram Jonwal 3. Trupti Sunil Barandwal 4. Sunil Shankarlal Barandwal ….Applicants VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & another …..Respondents Ms. C. P. Raktate, Advocate holding for Mr. B. S. Deshmukh, Advocate for Applicants. Mr. S. P. Joshi, APP for the State. CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. DATE : 28th AUGUST, 2026. PER COURT : 1. After hearing learned Counsel for both sides and when this Court has shown disinclination to grant relief to Applicant No. 2, learned Counsel for Applicants, on instructions, seeks withdrawal of application qua Applicant No. 2. 2. Application stands dismissed qua Applicant No. 2-Lalita Sitaram Jonwal as withdrawn. - 2 - criappln3364.24.odt 3. On the basis of First Information Report No. 60/2024 registered with Osmanpura Police Station, Tq. & Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, investigation came to be done which has resulted into filing of charge-sheet against the present Applicants and co-accused. There is allegation in the First Information Report by Respondent No. 2 against her husband and his relatives including present Applicants. There is allegation that after her marriage with accused No. 1, for some time, she was given proper treatment in the house and thereafter accused persons started causing harassment to her on different grounds including household work. There is allegation against co-accused of they demanding Rs. 10,00,000/- for the purpose of construction of house. Insofar as Applicant Nos. 1, 3 and 4 are concerned, allegations against them are vague. 4. Learned Counsel for Applicants submits that this is a classic case wherein distant relatives of the husband are roped in this crime for the purpose of causing harassment to them. It is pointed out from the First Information Report so also charge-sheet that there are no specific allegations against these Applicants constituting any - 3 - criappln3364.24.odt offence much less offence under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code. To support her submissions, she has placed reliance on following judgments :- (i) Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and others vs. State of Bihar & others, 2022 AIR(SC) 820. (ii) Preeti Gupta and another vs. State of Jharkhand & another 2010 AIR (SC) 3363. (iii) Priti Kumari vs. State of Bhiar and others 2019 DGLS(SC) 1254 (iv) Geeta Mehrotra and another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & another, 2012(10) SC 741. 5. Learned APP opposed the application by referring to the First Information Report so also statements recorded during the course of investigation. It is his submission that the contention of the Applicants would be taken into consideration during trial. 6. None appears for Respondent No. 2. Hence, side of Respondent No. 2 could not be known. However, this Court has carefully gone into the charge-sheet and collected evidence during course of investigation. - 4 - criappln3364.24.odt 7. It is settled position of law that the attempt of the informant in dragging distant relatives in the matrimonial discord is seriously taken note by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in number of judgments. It is settled position of law that in any case, on the basis of vague and general allegations, the distant relatives cannot be made to undergo the rigors of trial. 8. Coming to the facts in the present case, perusal of the First Information Report so also statements recorded during the course of investigation indicate that Applicant Nos. 1, 3 and 4 were not cohabiting with the informant at her matrimonial home. There are no specific allegations against them. The allegations against them are as vague as possible. Such vague allegations cannot be substantiated during trial. Having regard to these facts, application deserves to be allowed partly to the extent of Applicant Nos. 1, 3 and 4. The present case is duly covered by the guidelines laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 SCC (SUPP) 1 335, which gives guidelines for the decision of quashment of criminal proceedings. Relevant observations made therein read thus : - 5 - criappln3364.24.odt “ 102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. - 6 - criappln3364.24.odt (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code of the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for - 7 - criappln3364.24.odt wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 9. In the result, application is allowed qua Applicant Nos. 1, 3 and 4 in terms of prayer clause ‘B’. ( R. M. JOSHI, J.) dyb