IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3698 OF 2024 Kishori W/o Ramesh Kale Versus The State of Maharashtra & Another Mr. D. M. Shinde, Advocate for the Applicant. Mrs. R. P. Gour, APP for Respondent No.1/State. Mr. Y. B. Mote h/f Mr. P. P. More, Advocate for Respondent No.2. CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. DATE : 21st AUGUST, 2026 PER COURT :- 1. Heard learned Advocate for the Applicant, learned APP for Respondent No.1-State and learned Advocate for Respondent No.2. 2. The present Criminal Application is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of First Information Report No.48 of 2021 registered with Shivaji Nagar Police Station, District Latur, for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 420, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and the consequential charge-sheet and R.C.C. No.502 of 2022 pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latur, whereby cognizance was taken and process was issued against her, as well as the subsequent order dated 03.03.2025 passed in R.C.C. No.502 of 2022 whereby criapln3698.24.odt 1 of 7 2026:BHC-AUG:38753-DB charge came to be framed against the Applicant. 3. The prosecution case, as emerging from the FIR, is that Respondent No.2-informant is the wife of accused Sumeet Bhosale. The marriage proposal of Sumeet Bhosale was conveyed to the family of the informant through the present Applicant. It is alleged that when talks of marriage were going on Sumeet Bhosale represented as a doctor and relying upon such representation, the marriage was fixed and solemnized on 27.02.2015. It is further alleged that after the marriage the informant was sent to her parental home on the assurance that she would subsequently be taken to Mumbai, where her husband was stated to be practicing medicine. According to the informant, the matrimonial dispute continued thereafter and, in the year 2021, she made enquiries regarding the educational qualification of her husband and came to know that he was not possessing the BDS degree as represented. 4. On the basis of the said allegations, the FIR came to be registered on 22.01.2021. The investigation was thereafter completed and charge- sheet came to be filed. The charge-sheet was registered as R.C. C. No.502 of 2022 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latur. The specific case of the Applicant is that she is merely a relative who had conveyed/suggested the marriage proposal. She herself was not aware that Sumeet Bhosale was not a doctor or that any false representation criapln3698.24.odt 2 of 7 was being made regarding his qualification. It is submitted that the family of the informant had independently made enquiries and had proceeded with the marriage after satisfying themselves about the proposal. It is further submitted that the material collected during investigation does not disclose any active participation on the part of the Applicant in the alleged cheating. On the contrary, the material referred to in the application indicates that the family members of Sumeet Bhosale had represented him as a doctor and that the Applicant had no knowledge of the alleged misrepresentation. 5. Learned Advocate for the Applicant submits that merely because the Applicant had suggested the marriage proposal, she cannot be prosecuted for an offence of cheating in the absence of any material showing dishonest intention or active participation on her part. It is also submitted that there are no specific allegations of cruelty or criminal intimidation attributable to the Applicant. It is further submitted that the Applicant does not fall within the category of persons against whom the necessary ingredients of Section 498(A) of the IPC are attracted and that the allegations against her are general in nature. It is submitted that continuation of the proceedings against the Applicant would amount to abuse of the process of law. 6. Learned APP opposed the application. Learned Advocate for criapln3698.24.odt 3 of 7 Respondent No.2 also opposed the relief sought by the Applicant and submitted that the allegations in the FIR and the material collected during investigation are sufficient to proceed against the Applicant. Considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the respective parties and perused the FIR, charge-sheet and the other material placed on record. 7. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the Applicant has been arraigned mainly on the allegation that she had suggested the marriage proposal of accused Sumeet Bhosale to the family of the informant. The material placed on record, however, does not disclose that the Applicant had knowledge that Sumeet Bhosale was not possessing the qualification which was represented to the informant and her family. For constituting the offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC, the necessary ingredients of cheating, including dishonest or fraudulent intention and the role of the accused in inducing the person concerned, are required to be disclosed. In the present case, the allegations and material against the Applicant do not disclose her active participation in the alleged misrepresentation or any dishonest intention on her part. The fact that the Applicant had conveyed or suggested the marriage proposal, by itself, cannot be treated as sufficient material to constitute the offence of cheating against her, particularly when the material placed on record criapln3698.24.odt 4 of 7 does not indicate that she was aware of the alleged false representation regarding the qualification of the bridegroom. Moreover, in view of the statement on record it can be seen that the informant and her husband's father are friends. This shows that there is no reason for the Applicant to misrepresent the qualification of the groom. 8. In so far as Section 498(A) of the IPC is concerned, there is no specific allegation in the FIR showing that the present Applicant had subjected the informant to cruelty as contemplated by the said provision. The allegations against the Applicant are general in nature and no specific overt act of cruelty attributable to her is disclosed. Likewise, there is no specific allegation or material showing that the Applicant had threatened the informant so as to attract the ingredients of Section 506 of the IPC. The power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure no doubt is required to be exercised sparingly. However, the allegations in the FIR and the material collected during investigation, even if taken at their face value, do not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences alleged against Applicant, Continuation of the criminal proceedings against Applicant would amount to abuse of the process of law. 9. In the present case, on a careful consideration of the material available on record this court finds that the essential ingredients criapln3698.24.odt 5 of 7 constituting the offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC are not made out against the Applicant. since there are no specific allegations against the Applicant to attract the provisions of Sections 498-A and 506 of the IPC. 10. In view of the above, continuation of the criminal proceedings against the present Applicant would serve no useful purpose and would amount to abuse of the process of law. The Applicant is, therefore, entitled to the relief sought. Hence the following order:- ORDER (i) The Criminal Application is allowed in terms of Prayer Clauses B, B1 B2 and C. (ii) First Information Report No.48 of 2021 registered with Shivaji Nagar Police Station, District Latur, for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 420, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, insofar as the present Applicant – Kishori W/o Ramesh Kale – is concerned, is hereby quashed and set aside. (iii) The consequential charge-sheet No.98/2021 dated 16.04.2022 and R.C.C. No.502 of 2022 pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latur, insofar as the present Applicant is concerned, are hereby quashed and set aside. (iv) Consequently, the order dated 29.04.2022 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latur, taking cognizance and issuing process against the present Applicant, and the order dated 03.03.2025 framing charge against the Applicant, insofar as the criapln3698.24.odt 6 of 7 Applicant is concerned, are hereby quashed and set aside. 11. The observations made herein are confined only to the present Applicant and shall not affect the proceedings against the other accused, if any. (R. M. JOSHI, J.) B. S. Joshi criapln3698.24.odt 7 of 7