19-APPLN-3601-25.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3601 OF 2025 1. Sachin Eknath Kadam Age- 32 years, Occu- Private Service, R/o. Shri 295 Ward No. 7, Bendarwadi Galli, Shri Amardas Baba Temple Road, Risod, Tq. Risod, Dist. Washim. 2. Nagesh s/o Eknath Kadam, Age- 28 years, Occu- Agril., R/o. Shri At Bendarwadi Galli, Risod, Tq. Risod, Dist. Washim. ..APPLICANTS VERSUS 1. Amrapali Sachin Kadam @ Amrapali d/o Amrut Pawar, Age- 3o yrs, Occu- Private Service, R/o. C/o. Residence: Amrut awar, PawarMala, Opposite Suvidh Bekari, Nagar-Solapur Road,Mirajgaon, Tq. Karjat, Dist. Ahmednagar, Pin 4r44or Office Address: Cognizant Hr, Phaser, Hinjewadi, Pune-4rro56. ..RESPONDENT .... Mr. S.S. Nade, Advocate for applicants .... CORAM : ABHAY J. MANTRI, J. DATE : 01st DECEMBER, 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants. None appears for the respondent, through served. Perused the record. 2. The applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing the proceeding, bearing Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1 / 4 2025:BHC-AUG:33487 19-APPLN-3601-25.odt 264 of 2024 pending against them under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (for short, ‘D.V. Act’) before the learned J.M.F.C., Karjat. 3. It is pertinent to note that on 13th October, 2025, learned counsel for the applicants made a statement before the Court that he does not press the application to the extent of Applicant No.1 i.e. the husband of the respondent and accordingly urged for withdrawal of the application to the extent of Applicant No.1. Today also he has confirmed the said statement. His statement is accepted. In view of the same, the criminal application against Applicant No.1 is dismissed as withdrawn. 4. The short question that arises before the Court is whether Applicant No.2 is entitled to the relief as he claimed. On perusal of the record, it appears that Applicant No.2 is the younger brother-in-law of the respondent, who is residing at Risod, Dist. Washim, Applicant No.1, and the respondent were living in Pune at the relevant time. 5. Perused the original complaint, wherein in paragraph no.7 only the allegations are made against Applicant No.2. I would like to reproduce the same as under :- “lkeusokyk ua-2 gk lq/nk vtZnkjkl eqn~nke ekufld =kl nsr vls- lkeusokyk ua-2 gk gh vtZnkj ghl Eg.kr vlr dh] *rqEgh fMe vkgkr] rqEgh flanwjp ykfor ukgh] diMs gkrkus /kqr ukghr] tso.kkr uoufou inkFkZ djhr ukghr] dkes >ViV djhr ukghr]* v’kk ;k uk R;k ‘kqYyd dkj.kko#u lkeusokyk ua-2 gk vtZnkjkpk ekufld NG djhr vls-” 2 / 4 19-APPLN-3601-25.odt 6. A bare perusal of the allegation above against applicant No.2 appears to be vague and omnibus. The respondent has not stated when he made the said statement or how he committed domestic violence against her by making such a statement. No specific instances of domestic violence against her at the hands of the applicant No. 2 were mentioned in the application. 7. Apart from that, it does not appear that Applicant No.2 and the respondent were residing together in a shared household. As such, in the absence of any specific role adverted to Applicant No.2, it would be unjust if Applicant No.2 were forced to go through the tribulation of the trial. Moreover, general and omnibus allegations cannot be manifested in a situation where the relatives of the complainant’s husband are forced to undergo the trial. 8. Thus, considering the above averments in the complaint and the fact that Applicant No.2 is residing at Risod and Applicant No.1 and the respondent were residing at Pune, at the relevant time, as well as the fact that no specific role has been attributed against Applicant No.2 in the original complaint for committal of the domestic violence by him against him, in my view, the proceeding filed against Applicant No.2 needs to be quashed and set aside. Consequently, I found substance in the contention of learned counsel for the applicant no.2 in that regard. 3 / 4 19-APPLN-3601-25.odt 9. Having considered the above discussion, in my view, it would be appropriate to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash the proceeding against Applicant No.2, as no prima facie case is made out against him to demonstrate that he has committed domestic violence against the respondent. As a result, the Criminal application is partly allowed to the extent of Applicant No.2 – Nagesh Eknath Kadam. As a sequel, Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 264 of 2024 filed under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the D. V. Act, at Karjat, to the extent of Applicant No.2 is hereby quashed and set aside. Criminal application is rejected to the extent of Applicant No.1 – Sachin Eknath Kadam. Inform the order to the learned Magistrate. ( ABHAY J. MANTRI, J. ) SSD 4 / 4