1 1578.2024APPLN.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1578 OF 2024 1. Maroti S/o Digambar Ambekar Age : 31 years, Occ : Painter, R/o Mahatma Phule Colony, Naigaon, Tq. Naigaon, Dist. Nanded 2. Digambar S/o Babarao Ambekar Age : 53 years, Occ :Agri., R/o Mahatma Phule Colony, Naigaon, Tq. Naigaon, Dist. Nanded At present R/o Kondalapur, Tq. Biloli, Dist. Nanded 3. Pooja W/o Santosh Waghmare Age : 22 years, Occ : Household, R/o Vazirgaon, Post. Patoda, Tq. Naigaon, Dist. Nanded. 4. Santosh S/o Bapurao Waghmare Age : 35 years, Occ : Agri. Labour, R/o Vazirgaon, Post. Patoda, Tq. Naigaon, Dist. Nanded. 5. Rajnandini @ Nandabai W/o Kirankumar Gade Age : 24 years, Occ : Household, R/o Karadkhed, Tq. Degloor, Dist. Nanded. 6. Kirankumar S/o Shivajirao Gade Age : 30 years, Occ :Agri., R/o Karadkhed, Tq. Degloor, Dist. Nanded. 7. Archana @ Suvarnabai W/o Gangadhar @ Raju Kamlakar Age : 30 years, Occ : Household, R/o Yelwat Mandal-Tanoor, Tq. Mudhol, Dist. Nirmal (Telangana State) 8. Gangadhar @ Raju S/o Babu Kamlakar Age : 32 years, Occ : Agri., 2025:BHC-AUG:1506-DB 2 1578.2024APPLN.odt R/o Yelwat Mandal-Tanoor, Tq. Mudhol, Dist. Nirmal (Telangana State) ..APPLICANTS -VERSUS- 1. The State of Maharashtra Through Police Station, Naigaon, Tq. Naigaon (Kh.), Dist. Nanded. 2. Kranti W/o Maroti Ambekar Age : 23 years, Occ : Household, R/o at present Kedar Wadgaon, Tq. Naigaon, Dist. Nanded. ..RESPONDENTS ... Advocate for the applicants : Mr. Upendra B. Bilolikar APP for Respondent- State : Mr. G.A. Kulkarni Advocates for respondent No.2 : Shri S. S. Kulkarni (appointed through legal aid) … CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND ROHIT W. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 8th JANUARY, 2025024. JUDGMENT (PER ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.) : . The Applicants have filed the present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), inter alia, praying that F.I.R. No.106/2023 registered against them with Police Station, Naigaon, Dist. Nanded on 02.08.2023, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) and Final Report/Charge-Sheet dated 05.09.2023 bearing No.52/2023 and Regular Criminal Case 3 1578.2024APPLN.odt No.89/2023 registered pursuant thereto, which is pending on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Naigaon be quashed. 2. The Applicants are related to Respondent No.2 – Informant as under :- (i) Applicant No.1 – husband (ii) Applicant No.2 – mother-in-law (iii) Applicant No.3 - married sister-in-law (iv) Applicant No.4 – husband of married sister-in-law (v) Applicant No.5 - married sister-in-law (vi) Applicant No.6 – husband of married sister-in-law (vii) Applicant No.7 - married sister-in-law (viii) Applicant No.8 – husband of married sister-in-law 3. Before adverting to merits of the matter, we may record that the present application was rejected qua Applicant Nos.1 and 2, vide order dated 15.04.2024. Simultaneously, notice was issued in the proceeding qua Applicant Nos.3 to 8. 4. The marriage of Respondent No.2 with Applicant No.1 was solemnized on 19.04.2017. The couple is blessed with a son, who was born somewhere in the year 2019. Respondent No.2 has alleged in the 4 1578.2024APPLN.odt F.I.R. that after a period of four months from the date of marriage, the in-laws started illtreating her and would constantly say that she is not good looking and does not cook well. Apart from this, there is allegation that the Applicants used to demand Rs.2,00,000/- from Respondent No.2 for purchasing the agricultural land. She states that her parents are poor persons, who could not meet the said demand, and therefore, the in-laws used to illtreat her, not offer food and would also beat her. It is stated that due to illtreatment by the in-laws, Respondent No.2 is staying at her parental house. It is thereafter alleged that in May, 2023, a meeting for reconciliation of the matter was called, in which Applicant No.1 and his father were present along with parents of Respondent No.2 and some other villagers, in which Applicant No.1 had again refused to bring back Respondent No.2 to her matrimonial house and had abused and beaten her. 5. Similar statements are given by the witnesses under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. during the course of investigation. 6. The allegations in the F.I.R. are levelled against Applicant No.1. They can be attributable to Applicant No.2 as well, who is father- in-law of Respondent No.2. However, as against Applicant Nos.3 to 8, there are no specific allegations. Their names have been mentioned in 5 1578.2024APPLN.odt the F.I.R., however, specific individual role is not attributed to any of them. Likewise, particulars of alleged illtreatment or harassment such as date, time or even tentative period is not mentioned. Applicant Nos.3, 5 and 7 are married sisters-in-law and Applicant Nos.4, 6 and 8 are their respective husbands. The sisters-in-law and their husbands never resided with Applicant Nos.1 and 2 in the matrimonial house of Respondent No.2. It is now well settled by the catena of judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that general, omnibus allegations that are lacking in particulars are not sufficient to constitute an offence under Section 498-A of the IPC. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also cautioned against over implication of relatives in offences under Section 498-A of the IPC. The present case clearly appears to be one of the nature in which the wife has unnecessarily implicated the married sisters-in-law and their husbands without being able to level any specific allegations against them with particulars. She has not been able to assign any individual role and has levelled omnibus allegations against them. Lodging of F.I.R. against Applicant Nos.3 to 8 is clear abuse of the process of law. We may also mention that there is nothing to remotely infer common intention of Applicant Nos.3 to 8 with Applicant No.1 and/or Applicant No.2. Having regard to the contents of F.I.R. and other material on record, we are of the considered opinion that the application deserves to be allowed qua Applicant Nos.3 to 8. 6 1578.2024APPLN.odt Hence, we pass the following order :- ORDER (i) The application is partly allowed. (ii) Application with respect to Applicant No.1 – Maroti S/o Digambar Ambekar and Applicant No.2 - Digambar S/o Babarao Ambekar stands rejected. (iii) The F.I.R. No.106/2023 registered with Police Station, Naigaon, Dist.Nanded on 02.08.2023, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Final Report/Charge-Sheet No. No.52/2023 dated 05.09.2023 and Regular Criminal Case No.89/2023 pending on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Naigaon are hereby quashed against Applicant No.3 - Pooja W/o Santosh Waghmare, Applicant No.4 - Santosh S/o Bapurao Waghmare, Applicant No.5 - Rajnandini @ Nandabai W/o Kirankumar Gade, Applicant No.6 - Kirankumar S/o Shivajirao Gade, Applicant No.7 - Archana @ Suvarnabai W/o Gangadhar @ Raju Kamlakar and Applicant No.8 - Gangadhar @ Raju S/o Babu Kamlakar. [ROHIT W. JOSHI] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI] JUDGE JUDGE sga/