Q979appln1546 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 979 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1546 OF 2025 1. Walmik s/o Anna Pathare Age 27 years Occ. Private service R/o: Guru Datta Housing Society More Vasti Chikhli Road Pune, Chinchvad Pune Maharashtra Mob. No. 93733923014 2. Mangla w/o Anna Pathare Age: 47 years Occ. House-wife, R/o as Above ... Applicants 3. Anna s/o Murlidhar Pathare Age :55, Occ. Private service R/o as Above 4. Pooja w/o Sagar Bhalerao Age: 24 years Occ. House-wife, R/o C/o Sagar Bhalerao Mahalunge, Pune Maharashtra VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra through its In-charge Police Station Officer Vedant Nagar, Police Station Aurangabad District Aurangabad 2. Vaishali w/o Walmik Pathare Age :23 years, Occ. House hold, R/o Backside of District Court Kranti Nagar, Vedant Nagar, Aurangabad, Maharashtra ... Respondents Ms. Chate Sharada Pundlik, Advocate for the Applicants Mr. K. K. Naik, APP for the Respondent-State Ms.Deepali S. Patil-Yenegure, Advocate for Respondent No.2(appointed) CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J. Dated : 2nd September, 2026 1 of 8 2026:BHC-AUG:41170-DB Q979appln1546 PER COURT :- 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the applicant. At the outset, when this court shown disinclination to consider the present application for quashing in respect of applicant no.1, the learned Advocate for the Applicants, upon instructions, seeks permission to withdraw the application on behalf of applicant no.1. Permission granted. 2. The present application on behalf of Applicant Nos. 2, 3 and 4 is for quashing of the First Information Report bearing Crime No 39 of 2025 dated 05.03.2025 registered with Vednant Nagar Police Station, District Aurangabad for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 498(A), 504, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The investigation is complete and the charge-sheet has already been filed. The trial court has taken cognizance on 06.06.2025. Thus, by seeking leave to amend, the present applicants had also challenged the consequential proceedings which has led to filing of Regular Criminal Case No. 1173 of 2025, pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Aurangabad. 3. The case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is that the applicants are the in-laws of the informant. The marriage of the applicant no.1 and respondent no.2 was solemnized on 30.10.2021. It is alleged that after the marriage, respondent no.2 had gone to reside at Pune with applicant No.1. According to her, initially, she was treated properly but 2 of 8 Q979appln1546 thereafter, matrimonial dispute arose. The allegations against applicant Nos 2 and 4 are essentially that they used to instigate applicant no.1, abuse respondent no.2 and complain that her father had not fulfilled their expectation at the time of marriage. There is also an allegation concerning the demand of Rs.2 lakhs for construction of house at Pune. Respondent no. 2 ultimately started residing with her parents from about February, 2022. She had also instituted proceeding under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violation Act. The present FIR, however, came to be registered on 05.03.2025. 4. At the outset, the learned Advocate appearing for the applicants submits that applicant nos.2 and 3 are the parents of applicant no.1 where as applicant no.4 is his married sister. The record indicates that applicant no.4 is residing at her matrimonial home with her husband and the family. She relies upon the documents annexed in the charge-sheet showing the address of applicant no.4 as village Malunge, Pune, which, according to her, is at the distance of 15 kms. from the place where the informant used to reside. She also submits that applicant no.4 has two school going children and therefore, there is no possibility that every day she can travel to the house of her parents and commit the alleged offense. She also submits that applicant nos.2 and 3 are residing at their native place and they were never residing with applicant no.1 and respondent no.2. However, she candidly admits that there is nothing on record to show that they were residing separately. In respect of applicant no.4, she also submitted 3 of 8 Q979appln1546 that applicant no.4 was married prior to the marriage of applicant no.1 and respondent no.2 and this fact also needs to be taken into consideration. 5. The learned APP as well as the learned Advocate appearing for Respondent No.2 vehemently opposed the application. Both the learned Advocates submitted that there are specific allegations levelled against all the applicants and the ingredients that are essential to constitute the offences under section 498-A are clearly made out from the nature of allegations that has been versed in the complaint. This is not a case, where, at this stage, it can be inferred that applicant nos. 2 and 3 were not residing along-with applicant no.1 and respondent no.2 at the relevant time. If at all it has to be considered, then it has to be considered as a defence of applicant nos. 2 and 3, which necessary will have to proved at the time of trial. They also argued that allegations of instigation is against applicant no.4. Thus, cumulatively they argue that there are specific allegations and specific role attributed to each of the applicants. In these circumstances, they pray that the application be dismissed and the applicants be directed to face the trial. 6. I have gone through the contents of the FIR as well as the material collected by the investigating agency during the investigation. Insofar as the applicant nos. 2 to 4 are concerned, what emerges is that the allegations are substantially general and omnibus in character. No distinct incidents, with necessary particulars as to the date, place and individual overt act of each of these applicants have been attributed to 4 of 8 Q979appln1546 them so as to prima facie demonstrate the nature of the cruelty allegedly perpetrated by each of them. The tendency in the allegations is to refer the relatives of the husband collectively rather than to disclose their separate and specific participation. 7. This assumes significance particularly in the case of applicant no.4. It is an admitted position that applicant no.4 is a married sister of applicant no.1 and is shown to be residing at her matrimonial home. The material does not indicate or disclose any specific incident, demonstrating her participation in the alleged demand or physical or mental cruelty. Mere allegation that the relatives used to instigate the husband or abuse the informant without particulars of the conduct constituting the offence would not by itself justify separately residing married sister to a criminal trial. 8. Even as regards applicant nos.2 and 3, the material has to be assessed independently of the allegations against applicant no.1 The fact that applicant no.1 is the husband cannot result in a automatic inference of criminal liability against every member of his family. Though the FIR refers to a demand of Rs. 2 lakhs, the allegations against the relatives, read as a whole, remain largely collective in nature and are not supported by particulars indicating their individual role in subjecting respondent no.2 to cruelty of the nature as contemplated in under the provisions of Section 498-A of the IPC. 9. The charge-sheet does not materially improve the prosecution 5 of 8 Q979appln1546 case against applicant nos. 2 to 4. The statements relied upon are principally those of respondent no.2 and her family members. There is no independent material or statement of any independent witness brought on record which supplies the necessary specificity to the otherwise general allegations against these applicants. This circumstance, by itself, may not be sufficient to warrant quashing of the prosecution. However, when considered in conjunction with the nature of the allegations, the separate residence of applicant No. 4, the absence of any clearly identifiable individual act, and the substantial lapse of time between the matrimonial separation and the registration of the FIR, this circumstance assumes relevance. 10. It is well settled that while exercising jurisdiction of criminal proceedings, the court is not expected to undertake meticulous appreciation of evidence or conduct a mini trial. Equally, the inherent jurisdiction is required to be exercised where the allegations, even if accepted, at their face value, do not disclose an essential ingredients of the offences against the persons sought to be prosecuted, or where continuation of such proceedings would amount to abuse of process of the court. In matrimonial disputes, the Hon’ble Apex court has repeatedly cautioned against permitting prosecution of relatives of the husband on the basis of vague and omnibus allegations without discernible role being attributed to them. The principles are clearly stated in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal and others reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 and also in the case of Kahkashan Kausar 6 of 8 Q979appln1546 vs. State of Bihar (2022) 6 SCC 599 which are clearly attracted in the present case. 11. The case against applicant no.1 who is husband stands on a different footing as compared to the case alleged against applicant nos. 2 to 3. I have deliberately expressed no opinion on the merits of the allegation against applicant no.1, since the application is withdrawn qua the applicant no.1. The subsequent matrimonial status of respondent no.2, which was referred to during the hearing, pertaining to she being remarried, is also unnecessary for deciding whether the material constituting the charge-sheet discloses alleged offences against applicant nos. 2 to 4. The present order, therefore, rests on the allegations and material exclusively concerning the applicant nos. 2 to 4 themselves. 12. Thus, in my considered view, permitting criminal prosecution to continue against applicant nos. 2 to 4 on such omnibus material would amount to compelling them to face the criminal trial notwithstanding the sufficiently specific allegations constituting the offences alleged against them. This is, therefore, a fit case for exercising the inherent jurisdiction to that limited extent. Hence, the following order: O R D E R (a) Criminal Application stands dismissed as withdrawn insofar as applicant No.1 Walmik Anna Pathare is concerned. 7 of 8 Q979appln1546 (b) Criminal application stands allowed insofar as applicant nos. 2 to 4 are concerned. (c) First Information Report bearing Crime No 39 of 2025 dated 05.03.2025 registered with Vednant Nagar Police Station, District Aurangabad for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 498(A), 504, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and consequential proceeding bearing Regular Criminal Case No. 1173 of 2025 pending on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Aurangabad along-with the order taking cognizance dated 06.06.2025 passed in the above referred criminal case are hereby quashed and set aside. (c) Rule is made absolute in the above terms. (d) No order as to costs. (c) Fees of the appointed Advocate is quantified to Rs.7,500/- (Rupees Seven Thousand Five Hundred only) to be paid by the Legal Services Sub Committee, High Court, Aurangabad (HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.) JPChavan 8 of 8