cri.appln.4405.2024.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4405/2024 1.Vinayak S/o Sambhaji Sonkamble (Husband) 2. Sambhaji S/o Gyanoji Sonkamble (Father-in-law) 3. Anil S/o Sambhaji Sonkamble (Brother-in-law) 4. Sunil S/o Sambhaji Sonkamble (Brother-in-law) 5. Shila S/o Anil Sonkamble (Sister-in-law) 6. Kanchan W/o Sunil Sonkamble (Sister-in-law) 7. Ushabai @ Janabai Wd/o Ashok Kamble 8. Amrapali W/o Govardhan Bansode ...Applicants Versus 1.The State of Maharashtra 2. Shila W/o Vinayak Sonkamble ...Respondents ... Mr. G. K. Muneshwar, Advocate for Applicants Mr. M. M. Parghane, Advocate for Respondent No. 2 Mr. S. P. Joshi, APP for Respondent - State ... CORAM : R.M. JOSHI, J DATE : SEPTEMBER 29, 2026 P. C. : 1. At the outset, it must be recorded that the application qua Applicant No. 1 to 6 stood disposed of as withdrawn by this Court’s order dated 5th February 2025. 2. By this application, Applicant Nos. 7 and 8 seek quashment of First Information Report bearing Crime No. 256/ 2023, registered at Nanded Rural Police Station District Nanded for offences punishable under 2026:BHC-AUG:46459-DB cri.appln.4405.2024.odt Sections 498-A, 323, 504, and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and the subsequent proceedings pending before the learned Civil Judge Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate First Class in RCC No. 723 of 2023, including the order issuing summons dated 07.07.2023. 3. According to the prosecution, Shilpa Vinayak Sonkamble lodged a First Information Report against her in-laws. The marriage between the informant and Applicant No. 1 was solemnized on 02.02.2020, as per Buddhist rituals, and a male child was born from the wedlock. At the time of the wedding, the parents of the informant gifted Rs. 5 Lakh, a 5-gram gold ring, and household articles. After a brief initial period of peaceful cohabitation, the husband and co-accused began subjecting her to physical assault, starvation, verbal abuse regarding her complexion, and torture, including inflicting burn injuries with incense sticks. It is contended that applicants demanded an additional Rs. 5 Lakh to purchase a car, as well as the transfer of the informant's fathers’ agricultural land and house property. On 14.08.2020, the informant left her matrimonial home and started living with her parents at Gopal Chawadi. Later, on 20.09.2022, the applicant no.1 visited the parental home of the informant. Although Applicant No. 1 wanted to take Respondent No. 2 for cohabitation, he had no residential house of his own and instead demanded that the second floor of the informant's parents' residence be transferred to his name. He subsequently cri.appln.4405.2024.odt assaulted the informant with kicks again. On 14.03.2022, Applicant No. 1 had approached the Women Assistance Cell at the Police Superintendent’s Office in Nanded regarding cohabitation. Thereafter a letter was received by the informant, and a present FIR came to be filed. 4. The counsel for the applicants submits that allegations in FIR against the applicants are completely vague, and omnibus. It is contended that the charge sheet relies solely on the statements of interested witnesses without any corroborative evidence, rendering the chances of conviction bleak. Furthermore, the allegations regarding the illegal demands of Rs. 5 lakhs agricultural land, and property are completely unspecific, and omnibus. It is contended that the complaint is false, concocted and filed out of personal vendetta. It is further submitted that the Applicant No. 1 (husband) had previously approached the Women Assistance Cell, S.P. Office, Nanded on 14.03.2022, seeking cohabitation, but the informant refused and belatedly lodged this FIR on 12.03.2023. Additionally, applicant no. 7 is 64 yrs and applicant no. 8 are sister-in-laws who are residing separately and they have no concern with the informant. Counsel for applicants relies upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Haryana v.s Bhajan Lal, (1992) SCC (cri) 426. 5. The Learned APP and counsel for the informant strongly opposed granting any relief to applicant nos. 7 and 8. It is contended that cri.appln.4405.2024.odt the allegations in the FIR disclose a prima facie case of cognizable offences. It is submitted that the allegations in the FIR contain specific, continuous instances of physical assault and mental harassment, which include inflicting burn injuries with incense sticks, starvation, verbal abuse, and a demand of dowry of Rs. 5 lakhs for a car and the transfer of the informant’s father’s property i.e., agricultural land and the second floor of the house. Additionally, the subsequent assault on 20.09.2022 at her parental home demonstrates an ongoing course of criminal conduct. It is further contended that the question of whether witnesses are “interested” is a matter for the appreciation of evidence before the trial court. It is contended that applicant nos. 7 and 8 cannot be absolved on the ground of age and separate residence, as the allegations in the FIR clearly indicate their active involvement in subjecting the informant to cruelty. The delay in lodging the FIR is well explained by the pre-litigation counseling and proceedings before the Women Assistance Cell, Nanded, while the informant's refusal to cohabit was entirely justified due to genuine threats to her life. 6. Perusal of the record and considering the rival submissions of both sides, this Court finds that the allegations in the FIR against applicant nos. 7 and 8 are entirely omnibus and vague, lacking any indication of active participation in the alleged harassment and demand for dowry. Furthermore, applicant nos. 7 and 8 are distant relatives residing separately. Page 4 of 5 cri.appln.4405.2024.odt It is a settled position of law that relatives residing separately cannot be forced to face trial based on vague and omnibus allegations, as per the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Geeta Mehrotra v. State of UP (2012) 10 SCC 741 and Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar (2022) 6 SCC 599. The applicants have been unnecessarily roped into the proceedings without establishing any direct involvement in the couple's matrimonial life. The statements of the witnesses do not disclose any specific demands of dowry or physical harm attributed to them. Therefore, continuing criminal proceedings against applicant nos. 7 and 8 would constitute a clear abuse of the judicial process, satisfying the parameters laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (supra). 7. In view of the above, application is allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘C’. (R. M. JOSHI, J.) Malani