IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2826 OF 2024 1. Balaji Laxman Doranpalle 2. Laxman Sakharam Doranpalle 3. Mangalbai Laxman Doranpalle 4. Sudam Laxman Doranpalle 5. Ramkishan Hari Kature 6. Hari Kondiba Kature 7. Kacharubai Hari Kature … APPLICANTS VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. Shital Balaji Doranpalle … RESPONDENTS ... Mr. S. M. Mule, Advocate for Applicants (Appointed through Legal Aid) Mr. S. B. Narwade, APP for Respondent – State Mr. B. T. Bodhke, Advocate for Respondent No. 2 (Appointed) CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. DATED : 28th AUGUST, 2026 PER COURT :- 1. After hearing learned Counsels for both sides and when this Court has shown disinclination to grant relief to Applicant No.1, Balaji Laxman Doranpalle, learned Counsel for the Applicants, on instructions, seeks withdrawal of Application qua Applicant No. 1, Balaji Laxman Doranpalle. 2. In view of this, application stands dismissed as withdrawn qua Applicant No. 1, Balaji Laxman Doranpalle. 949 APPLN 2826.2024(aishmb).odt 1 of 5 2026:BHC-AUG:39448-DB 3. This Application is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the present Applicants seek quashment of First Information Report in Crime No. 0123/2024 dated 03.05.2024 registered with Vasmat Rural Police Station, District Hingoli for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”). 4. The case of the prosecution is that Respondent No.2 being Informant has lodged the FIR thereby alleging that the present Applicants have caused cruelty, hurt and criminal intimidation. The Informant, Shital Balaji Dornalpalle married Applicant No. 1, Balaji Laxman Dornalpalle, on 11.06.2023 according to Hindu rites and customs. Following the marriage, the Informant resided with her husband and his family members including her father-in-law (Applicant No. 2), mother-in-law (Applicant No. 3), brother-in- law (Applicant No. 4), maternal uncle-in-law (Applicant No. 5), grandfather- in-law (Applicant No. 6), and grandmother-in-law (Applicant No. 7) at Loleshwar. Although treated well during the initial month of marriage, the Informant was subsequently subjected to continuous physical and mental harassment. The Applicants repeatedly taunted her regarding household chores, insulted her by labeling her as bringing bad omen, and instigated Applicant No. 1 who subjected her to physical beatings. Furthermore, 949 APPLN 2826.2024(aishmb).odt 2 of 5 Applicants jointly coerced and harassed the Informant to demand 1,00,000/- ₹ from her parental home to purchase a new motorcycle. 5. Despite mediation attempts by the Informant’s parents and relatives, the Applicants persisted in their illegal monetary demands, threatening to beat her to death unless the amount was paid. On 29.09.2023, Applicants assaulted the informant with slaps and punches, issued death threats over her failure to secure the demanded money, and forcefully dropped her at Dagadpimpri. Following the incident, the Informant approached the Women Vigilance Committee (Bharosa Cell), Office of the Superintendent of Police, Hingoli, which issued an action letter dated 03.05.2024 (No. 196/24). On the basis of her oral statement recorded at Vasmat Rural Police Station on 03.05.2024, an FIR was registered. 6. The learned Counsel for the Applicants submitted that the allegations made in FIR are false and imaginary and there is no material to connect the Applicants with the commission of crime. He submitted that there are no specific allegations against the present Applicants and the present case is filed with intention to harass the Applicants. He further submits that the Applicant Nos. 4 to 7 are not residents of Aurangabad City or where the FIR has been registered and that they are residing separately from the matrimonial house of the Informant and the same is substantiated by placing evidence on record. 949 APPLN 2826.2024(aishmb).odt 3 of 5 7. Further, the learned Counsel for the Applicants contended that the entire family has been falsely implicated by Informant in the present FIR. There is no specific allegation against the present Applicants about any ill- treatment and except for general allegations of harassment caused that have been made against all the Applicants. 8. Learned APP and learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2 submits that the application for quashing deserves to be dismissed, as the FIR clearly shows prima facie case of cruelty under Section 498A of IPC being made out. It is further argued that claim of the Applicants living separately does not exonerate them from the offence, as they actively acted together causing cruelty. 9. A bare perusal of the record shows that all of the Applicant Nos. 4 to 7 are residing separately distant from the matrimonial home of the Informant. Though Applicant Nos. 2 and 3 were sharing the common house, there are no specific allegations against them of causing harassment to the Respondent No. 2. 10. At this stage, it would be relevant to refer to the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P., (2012) 10 SCC 741, Preeti Gupta & Anr. v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 667, 949 APPLN 2826.2024(aishmb).odt 4 of 5 Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar, (2022) 6 SCC 599, which states that relatives which are residing separately cannot be forced to face trial under Section 498A of IPC based on vague and sweeping allegations. 11. It is well-settled that a criminal prosecution under Section 498A of the IPC cannot be sustained against family members on the basis of general and uncorroborated assertions without concrete details regarding time, place, and individual participation. In the facts of the case, this Court is of the view that the allegations made in the FIR against the present Applicants are vague and lack specific overt acts and hence FIR and consequent proceedings are liable to be quashed and set aside. On the basis of such allegations, if the Applicants are called upon to undergo rigors of trial, it would lead to miscarriage of Justice. 12. In view of above, application qua Applicant No. 1 stands dismissed as withdrawn and application qua Applicant Nos. 2 to 7 is allowed in terms of prayer clauses ‘B’ and ‘B-1’. 13. Fees of both learned appointed Counsel for is quantified at Rs. 10,000/- to be paid by High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee, Aurangabad. ( R. M. JOSHI, J.) ssp 949 APPLN 2826.2024(aishmb).odt 5 of 5