APPLN.4661.2024.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4661 OF 2024 Kisan @ Kishan Sadashiv Kamble VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and another Ms. Rashmi S. Kulkarni, Advocate for applicant Mr. S. B. Narwade, APP for Respondent-State Mr. V. G. Kodale, Advocate for Respondent No. 2 CORAM : R.M. JOSHI, J DATE : AUGUST 28, 2026 P. C. : 1. By this application filed under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant seeks quashment of the Crime No. 354 of 2024 registered with the Kopargaon Police Station, District Ahmednagar for the offence punishable under sections 85, 115(2), 352, 351(2) and 351(3) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’). Upon completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that the present applicant is the paternal grand-uncle-in-law of Respondent-2 (Informant). The accused no. 2 i.e. Shivaji Bhausaheb Kamble is the step brother of the present applicant. Marriage between the informant/Respondent No. 2 and Tejas Shivaji Kamble i.e. Accused no. 1 was solemnised on 09.07.2023. Two months after the marriage, the in-laws allegedly began harassing the informant, 2026:BHC-AUG:39777-DB APPLN.4661.2024.odt demanding dowry for a grand wedding, gold, and Rs. 20 lakhs to purchase a flat in Pune. On 05.01.2024, when the informant discovered her husband’s extra-marital affair in Pune, she was physically assaulted, which instigating her to lodge the complaint in Bharti Vidyapeeth Police Station, Pune. Later, when she attempted to return to her matrimonial home at Mhaisgaon, Taluka Rahuri, her in-laws collectively quarreled with her, reiterated the demand for Rs. 20 lakhs and upon her refusal subjected her to physical and verbal abuse and forcibly ejected her from the house. When mediation by relatives and counselling at the Bharosa Cell in Ahmednagar failed because the in-laws initially agreed but subsequently refused to take her back, the present crime came to be registered. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that even if the allegations in the First Information Report are taken at face value, they fail to disclose any prima facie offence or specific overt act attributed to the applicant. The present applicant is merely a distant relative who resides separately in Ahmednagar which was approximately 60 to 65 km away from the matrimonial home, whereas informant and accused no. 1 resided in Pune. The counsel highlighted that the First Information Report relies entirely on vague and omnibus allegations aimed at dragging relatives into personal dispute. It further argued that the applicant is a distant relative of the informant, no prima facie case is made out against him, the question of APPLN.4661.2024.odt proceeding against the applicant pursuant to the filing of the report and investigation thereof does not arise. She relied on following judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court- 1. Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and Others v.s State of Bihar is Criminal Appeal No. 195 of 2022, (2022) 3 SCC 329 2.Geeta Mehrotra v.s State of U.P. Reported in (2012) 10 SCC, 3. Preeti Gupta v.s State of Jharkhand reported in (2010) 7 SCC 667, 4. G. V. Rao v.s L.H. V. Prasad and others (2000) 3 SCC 693 5. Shrikrushna v.s State of Maharashtra (2018) ALLMR (Cri)2148 6. Vikas v.s State of Maharashtra (2017) ALLMR(Cri) 846 7. Pramod Uttam Shinde and ors v.s State of Maharashtra (2015) ALLMT (Cri)4232 8. Sudhir Rangrao Patil v.s State of Maharashtra MANU/MH/2484/2017 9. Raosaheb v.s State of Maharashtra MANU/MH/2491/2017 4. The learned APP and counsel for Respondent No. 2 opposed the application. It submits that the First Information Report shows a prima facie case of physical and mental harassment, being made out. It is contended that the applicant is residing 60-65 km away in Ahmednagar does not automatically absolve the present applicant from the offence alleged. Furthermore, learned counsel for the informant/respondent no. 2 submits that the present applicant is also involved in causing voluntary hurt to the informant and therefore, the proceedings against him would be maintainable. Page 3 of 4 APPLN.4661.2024.odt 5. Perusal of the documents shows that the present applicant is a distant relative of the Informant and lives separately. Further, allegations in the First Information Report are made simply because the applicant is a family relative. There are no specific allegations against the present applicant regarding a demand of dowry or cruelty rather, allegations in FIR are prima facie against the co-accused. However, once the offence punishable under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code/ 85 of BNS is not attracted against the present applicant and the said offence is non- cognizable in nature, the question of proceeding against the applicant pursuant to the filing of the report and investigation thereof does not arise. In view of the fact that the applicant is a distant relative living separately, no prima facie offence is made out against the present applicant and no fruitful purpose would be served by continuing the criminal proceedings against the present applicant as held in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and others v.s State of Bihar, (2022) 3 SCC 329. 6. Hence, present application stands allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘B’. (R. M. JOSHI, J.) Malani