APPLN-3863-2024.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3863 OF 2024 1. Pravin Kachrulal Parakh 2. Jyoti Pravin Parakh 3. Bhushan Dilip Ghiya 4. Sonali Bhushan Ghiya ...Applicants Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. Khushi Lalchand Parakh ...Respondents Mr. S. S. Bora, counsel for the Applicants Ms. R. P. Gour, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1 – State CORAM :R.M. JOSHI, J DATE :SEPTEMBER 08, 2026 P. C. : 1. Heard learned Counsel for the applicants and learned A.P.P. for respondent No.1 – State. Respondent No.2, though served, has remained absent. The record indicates that by order dated 18.08.2026, respondent No.2/informant was served and was absent. The matter was thereafter directed to be heard and decided on merits in her absence. 2. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicants seek quashing and setting aside of the First Information Report dated 08.03.2024 bearing C.R. No.90 of 2024 registered with City Police Station, Chopda, District Jalgaon, for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 498-A, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom. Page 1 of 8 2026:BHC-AUG:41823-DB APPLN-3863-2024.odt 3. Initially, the application was filed seeking quashing of the First Information Report. During the pendency of the proceedings, the charge- sheet came to be filed. By order dated 02.01.2025, leave was granted to the applicants to amend the application and to place the charge-sheet on record. 4. The present applicants are arraigned as accused in the aforesaid crime. Applicant No.1 Pravin Kachrulal Parakh is stated to be the cousin father-in-law of respondent No.2. Applicant No.2 Jyoti Pravin Parakh is stated to be the cousin mother-in-law. Applicant No.3 Bhushan Dilip Ghiya is the husband of applicant No.4 and applicant No.4 Sonali Bhushan Ghiya is stated to be the sister-in-law of respondent No.2. The applicants are shown to be residing separately in Nashik District. 5. The allegations in the First Information Report arise out of the matrimonial relationship between respondent No.2 and Lalchand Hukumchand Parakh. It is stated that their marriage was solemnized on 06.03.2016 at village Sakori, Taluka Malegaon, District Nashik, according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. A daughter was born out of the said wedlock. It is alleged that for about six months after the marriage respondent No.2 was treated well, but thereafter she was subjected to harassment. It is alleged that her husband was suspicious in nature and used to quarrel with her on petty issues and had also slapped her. 6. It is further alleged that her father-in-law, mother-in-law, sister- APPLN-3863-2024.odt in-law, cousin father-in-law, cousin mother-in-law and other relatives were abusing and ill-treating her. One of the allegations is that the accused persons demanded an amount of Rs.50,000/- from the brother of respondent No.2 and that on account of such demand she was subjected to ill-treatment. It is further alleged that on 01.01.2020 her husband brought her to her parental house and thereafter she continued to reside with her parents. Respondent No.2 is stated to have approached the Mahila Takrar Nivaran Kendra on 12.10.2023. According to the allegations, the accused persons did not attend the proceedings before the said authority. Thereafter, on 08.03.2024, respondent No.2 lodged the First Information Report with Chopda City Police Station against eight persons including the present applicants. 7. The applicants have approached this Court contending that the allegations made against them are vague, general and omnibus in nature. According to the applicants, no specific date, time or particular overt act has been attributed to any of the present applicants. 8. It is submitted that applicant Nos.1 and 2 are residing at Nashik, whereas applicant Nos.3 and 4 are residing at Naigaon, Taluka Sinnar, District Nashik. It is therefore contended that the applicants have been implicated merely because of their relationship with the husband of respondent No.2. It is further submitted that the First Information Report APPLN-3863-2024.odt does not disclose any specific incident or overt act attributable to each of the present applicants. According to the applicants, the allegations are made against several relatives collectively without specifying the individual role of each accused. 9. The applicants have relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, contending that where the allegations, even if taken at their face value, do not disclose the commission of an offence, or where continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law, the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court can be exercised. Reliance has also been placed upon Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and others Vs. State of Bihar and others, (2022) 6 SCC 599, particularly with regard to general and omnibus allegations made against relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes. The applicants have further relied upon the judgment in Achin Gupta Vs. State of Haryana, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 759 contending that criminal proceedings ought not to be continued where the material placed on record does not disclose a specific role of the concerned accused in commission of the alleged offences. 10. Learned APP opposed the application by contending that the allegations against the applicants are sufficient to make them to undergo trial. Page 4 of 8 APPLN-3863-2024.odt 11. Before considering the merits of the application, it would be appropriate to bear in mind the settled principles governing exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The inherent jurisdiction of this Court is intended to prevent abuse of the process of any Court and to secure the ends of justice. Such jurisdiction is required to be exercised sparingly and with due caution. Ordinarily, the High Court does not undertake a detailed appreciation of evidence while considering a petition for quashing of criminal proceedings. However, where the allegations contained in the First Information Report and the material collected during investigation, even if accepted at their face value, do not disclose the commission of the alleged offence against a particular accused, or where continuation of the proceedings would result in abuse of the process of law, this Court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction. 12. In the present case, the allegations concerning matrimonial discord and alleged ill-treatment are primarily directed towards the husband and his family members. As regards the present applicants, the allegations are substantially general and collective in nature. 13. On careful consideration of the allegations, this Court finds that there is no specific and distinct overt act attributed to applicant Nos.1 to 4 so as to demonstrate their individual involvement in the alleged offences. The First Information Report refers to the relatives collectively and does not APPLN-3863-2024.odt contain sufficient particulars indicating as to when, where and in what manner each of the present applicants committed the alleged acts. The fact that the applicants are relatives of the husband, by itself, cannot be treated as sufficient material to subject them to a criminal prosecution. Particularly in matrimonial disputes, it is necessary to examine whether there are specific allegations disclosing the ingredients of the alleged offence against each individual accused 14. In the present matter, applicant Nos.1 and 2 are shown to be residing at Nashik, whereas applicant Nos.3 and 4 are shown to be residing at Naigaon, Taluka Sinnar, District Nashik. Their separate residence has also been relied upon by the applicants in support of their contention that they have been unnecessarily implicated in the matrimonial dispute. The allegation regarding demand of Rs.50,000/- is also made against the accused persons collectively. There is no specific material apparent from the allegations placed before this Court which would establish the individual participation of the present applicants in making such demand or in subjecting respondent No.2 to cruelty in the manner contemplated by Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. 15. Likewise, the allegations regarding abuse, harassment and intimidation have not been supported, insofar as the present applicants are concerned, by specific particulars of the alleged incidents or by attribution APPLN-3863-2024.odt of a distinct role to each applicant. It is true that at the stage of considering a petition for quashing, the Court is not expected to conduct a meticulous appreciation of evidence. However, where the allegations are so general in nature that they do not disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged offences against the concerned accused, permitting the prosecution to continue merely on the basis of their relationship with the husband would not advance the cause of justice. 16. The principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal (supra) and the subsequent decisions relied upon by the applicants make it clear that criminal proceedings can be quashed where the allegations, even if taken at their face value, do not make out the alleged offence against the accused or where continuation of such proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of Court. In Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also considered the effect of general and omnibus allegations against relatives in matrimonial disputes. The principle emerging from the said decision is that mere implication of relatives, without specific allegations indicating their individual role, cannot by itself become the basis for continuation of criminal prosecution. 17. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, this Court is of the view that the allegations against the present applicants do not contain sufficient particulars to constitute the offences APPLN-3863-2024.odt alleged against them. The material placed before this Court does not disclose a specific role attributable to applicant Nos.1 to 4 which would justify continuation of the prosecution against them. It is also significant that respondent No.2, despite service, has chosen not to remain present before this Court. The order dated 18.08.2026 records that respondent No.2/informant was served and was absent, and the matter was directed to be heard and decided on merits even in her absence on the subsequent date. 18. In view of the nature of the allegations, the separate residence of the applicants, absence of specific overt acts and the settled principles governing exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this Court is satisfied that continuation of the criminal proceedings against the present applicants would amount to abuse of the process of law. 19. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present application deserves to be allowed insofar as the present applicants are concerned. Hence, application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses ‘b- 1’, ‘c’ & ‘c-1’. (R. M. JOSHI, J.) Malani