cri.appln.no.3614.2024.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3614/2024 1.Pramod s/o Pandit Daund (Husband) 2. Chitrakalabai w/o Pandit Daund (Mother-in-law) 3. Pandit S/o Waluba Daund (Father-in-law) 4. Sanjiwani W/o Rameshwar Ghanghav (Sister-in-law) 5. Rameshwar S/o Laxman Ghanghav (Brother-in-law) 6. Laxmi w/o Gajanan Kakde (Sister-in-law) 7. Gajanan s/o Dagduba Kakde (Brother in law) ...Applicants Versus 1.The State of Maharashtra 2. Sheetal w/o Pramod Daund ...Respondents Mr. P. V. Suryawanshi, Advocate for Applicants Ms. Rani Bharuka-Bora, Advocate for Respondent No. 2 (Appointed) Mr. S. B. Narwade, APP for Respondent - State ... CORAM : R.M. JOSHI, J DATE : SEPTEMBER 29, 2026 P. C. : 1. After hearing learned counsel for both sides, 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. The applicant therefore stands dismissed as withdrawn to his extent. 2. By this application, Applicant Nos. 2 to 7 seek quashment of First Information Report bearing Crime No.0070/2024, registered at Ajintha Police Station District Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the order 2026:BHC-AUG:46458-DB cri.appln.no.3614.2024.odt issuing process dated 25.6.2024 and order framing charges by the Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sillod District Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar dated 25.11.2024 and also the subsequent proceedings pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sillod, District Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar in RCC No. 173/2024. 3. It is a case of the Informant Sheetal Pramod Daund, who lodged a First Information Report against the present applicants that she was married to Applicant No. 1, Pramod Pandit Daund, in the year 2011 as per Hindu rites and rituals. Three children, namely Punam, Komal, and Vansh, were born out of the said wedlock. It is alleged that after the marriage, the in-laws subjected the informant to continuous physical and mental harassment, starvation, and an illegal demand of Rs. 5 lakh from her parents for the construction of a house. The harassment culminated on 13.10.2022, when a dispute arose over household groceries, during which Applicant No. 2 and Applicant No. 4 physically assaulted the informant. Upon being informed of the incident to the husband i.e. Applicant No. 1 allegedly beat her, subjected her to verbal abuse, reiterated the demand of Rs. 5 lakh, and threatened the informant, while other relatives similarly abused and threatened the informant, ultimately driving her out of the matrimonial home to seek shelter at her parental residence. It is alleged that Applicant No. 1 had an extramarital relationship with another woman and has refused to grant the informant a share in the property. Thereafter, the informant, along with her father, approached the Women’s Redressal Cell and attended the mediation sessions cri.appln.no.3614.2024.odt there, but Applicant No. 1 refused to cohabit without the fulfillment of the demands for money. Therefore, the informant lodged the First Information Report. 4. The learned counsel for the Applicants submits that the Applicants have been falsely implicated in the present crime. It is submitted that the First Information Report contains only general, vague, and omnibus allegations without attributing any specific act, and role. It is further contended that there is an inordinate and unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, as Respondent No. 2 allegedly left her matrimonial home on 13.10.2022, whereas the FIR was registered only on 10.03.2024. It is further contended that the present criminal proceedings are merely a counter-blast to the proceedings filed by Applicant No. 1 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for restitution of conjugal rights. The counsel highlights that no statement of any independent witness has been recorded during the investigation, and the charge-sheet relies solely on stereotype statements of interested relatives without providing specific details of the alleged demand of Rs. 5 Lakhs. The counsel for the applicants relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Haryana v.s Bhajan Lal, (1992) SCC (cri) 426 and Geeta Mehrotra v.s State of UP (2012) 10 SCC 741. 5. Per contra, the learned APP and the learned counsel for Informant, strongly opposed the application, submitting that the First Information Report as well as the charge-sheet made out a prima facie case against all the Applicants. It is submitted that the allegations are neither vague nor omnibus, but explicitly detail continuous physical and mental cruelty, starvations, and demands for dowry of Rs. 5 lakh for house construction. The learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 cri.appln.no.3614.2024.odt contended that the specific incident of 13.10.2022, wherein the Informant was physically assaulted over household grocery disputes, abused, and threatened, which lead to the informant leaving the matrimonial home. It is further submitted that the delay in registering the FIR stands explained by the bona fide efforts made toward reconciliation through family elders and proceedings before the Women’s Redressal Cell at Sillod. It is contended that disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated at this stage. 6. Upon perusal of the record placed before this court, this Court finds that the allegations in the FIR and subsequent statements are general, vague, and omnibus in nature. There is inordinate, unexplained delay in lodging the present FIR whereas the alleged incident happened on 13.10.2022 that time the informant left the matrimonial home. The record further indicates that Applicant No. 1 had initiated proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights, and the present prosecution appears to be a counter- blast to the said matrimonial dispute. Furthermore, there are no specific dates, instances, or distinct roles attributed toward the present Applicants, regarding any independent act of cruelty or demand of dowry. The statements recorded during investigation are largely identical, cyclostyled statements of interested family members, without any independent corroboration. In view of the principles settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (supra) and Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P. (supra), continuing the criminal proceedings against the Applicants would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Page 4 of 5 cri.appln.no.3614.2024.odt 7. In view of the above, application is partly allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘B’, ‘C-1’, and ‘C-2’. 9. Fees of appointed Counsel for Respondent No. 2 is quantified at Rs.10,000/- to be paid by High Court Legal Aid Services Sub-Committee, Aurangabad. (R. M. JOSHI, J.) Malani