IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4803 OF 2024 1. Virochan s/o Pralhad Bharti 2. Sandya w/o Pralhad Bharti 3. Pralhad s/o Ram Bharti 4. Snehal w/o Avinash Giri 5. Archana w/o Uday Giri 6. Uday s/o Pandurang Giri ...Applicants VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. Madhuri w/o Virochan Bharti ...Respondents ... Mr. V. D. Salunkhe, Advocate for Applicants Mr. S. P Joshi, APP for Respondent – State Mr. S. H. Jogdand h/f Mr. S. S. Gangakhedkar, Advocate for Respondent No. 2 ... CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. DATE :10th SEPTEMBER, 2026 PER COURT :- 1. After hearing Learned Counsel for both sides and when this Court has shown disinclination to grant relief to Applicant No.1 / husband, learned Counsel for the Applicants, on instructions, seeks withdrawal of the Application qua Applicant No. 1. 2. Application stands dismissed qua Applicant No. 1 as withdrawn. 3. This Application filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 the present Applicants seek quashment of First Information Report in Crime No. 0439 of 2024 dated 27.10.2024 registered with Vimantal Police Station, District Nanded for offences punishable under APPLN-4803-2024.odt 1 of 5 2026:BHC-AUG:42418-DB Sections 323, 498-A, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”) as against the Applicants. 4. The case of the prosecution is that the informant, Dr. Madhuri Bharati, married Virochan Pralhad Bharati on April 14, 2012, in Nanded, where her parents spent approximately 20 Lakhs on marriage expenses, ₹ alongside providing 10 Lakhs as cash dowry, 8 Lakhs for household ₹ ₹ amenities, and gold jewelry. The couple has a 9-year-old son out of the wedlock. The informant was employed as an Assistant Professor at a dental college from 2014 to 2019, during which period her in-laws, relatives, and husband continuously subjected her to systemic taunts, body shaming, and domestic cruelty regarding her appearance and domestic chores. 5. The FIR alleges that from 24.06.2018 to 29.09.2021, the husband of the informant, father-in-law, mother-in-law, sister-in-law, and maternal in- laws subjected her to physical beatings, verbal abuse, and mental torture. Specific allegations state that her husband frequently assaulted her under the influence of alcohol, forcibly stripped off her personal jewelry, and alongside the co-accused, demanded an additional sum of 10 Lakhs from her parents ₹ to purchase a residential plot. Following an unsuccessful intervention by the father of the informant and community elders on 10.09.2021, the accused persons physically assaulted the informant on 29.09.2021, and unlawfully expelled her along with her minor son from the matrimonial home due to APPLN-4803-2024.odt 2 of 5 non-payment of the illegal dowry demand. 6. Learned Counsel for the Applicants states that the entire family has been falsely implicated by the Respondent No.2/Informant in the present FIR and it is based on false averments and unsustainable grounds, prima-facie no case is made out even to register the offence. There are different criminal proceedings filed by the Informant and Applicant No.1 against each other which are pending and thereafter the Informant left the matrimonial house and lodged FIR after 3 years as an afterthought. He further submits that when the Applicant No.1 lost the job, Informant started to felt embarrassed and thereafter the quarrels started. He submits that complaint raising allegations of demand of money for purchasing the house are unfounded since the Applicants have a big house and the Applicant Nos. 3 and 5 are having a well to do background. Further, the Learned Counsel for the Applicants submits that the Informant herself discloses that for no reason the other family members and relatives are roped into the crime. There are no specific allegations attributable to the present Applicant Nos. 2-6 to constitute any offence, moreover, they are residing separately from the matrimonial home of the Informant. Therefore, he prays this court to quash the FIR. To support his contentions, he places reliance on Apex Court’s ruling in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 (supp) (1) SCC 335. APPLN-4803-2024.odt 3 of 5 7. Learned APP and learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2 submit that the application for quashing deserves to be dismissed, as the FIR clearly shows prima facie case of cruelty and dowry demands under Section 498-A of the IPC being made out. It is further submitted that the FIR does not contain mere general statements, but explicitly details specific acts of harassment, physical assault. It is admitted that the Applicant Nos. 4-6 were residing separately, however it is contended that the said fact does not automatically absolve them from the offence committed. 8. Bare perusal of the record shows that Applicant Nos. 2 to 6 are residing separately distant from the matrimonial home and moreover, there are no specific allegations attributable to the said Applicants. 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. Furthermore, previous complaints raised by the Informant do not indicate occurrence of any incident insofar as Applicant Nos. 2 to 6 are concerned. In the absence of evidence demonstrating active involvement in day-to-day domestic affairs, implicating relatives who reside separately merely by virtue of their relationship constitutes an abuse of the process of law. 9. 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 APPLN-4803-2024.odt 4 of 5 SCC 741, Preeti Gupta & Anr. v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 667, which states that relatives which are residing separately cannot be forced to face trial under Section 498-A IPC based on vague and sweeping allegations. On the same point, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment in the case of Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar, (2022) 6 SCC 599, while referring to K Subba Rao v. State of Telangana, (2018) 14 SCC 452 observed thus: “16. Recently, in K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana 11, it was also observed that: (SCC p. 454, para 6) "6. ... The courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out." (emphasis supplied) In the facts of the case, this Court is of the view that the allegations made in the FIR against the present Applicant Nos. 2 to 6 are vague and lack specific overt acts and hence FIR liable to be quashed. On the basis of such allegations, if the Applicants are called upon to undergo rigors of trial, it would lead to miscarriage of Justice. 10. In view of above, application stands partly allowed qua Applicant Nos. 2 to 6, in terms of prayer clause ‘B’. ` (R. M. JOSHI, J.) Umesh APPLN-4803-2024.odt 5 of 5