cri.applln.4754.2024.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4754/2024 1.Amir khan Shamshir Khan Pathan (Husband) 2. Bebeenaz Shamshir Khan Pathan (mother-in-law) 3. Sahel Khan Shamshir Khan Pathan (Brother-in-law) 4. Nagma Khan Shamshir Khan (Sister-in-law) 5. Heena Begum Shamshir Khan (Sister-in-law) 6. Ujma @ Farhana Shaikh Naimoddin (Sister-in-law) ...Applicant Versus 1.The State of Maharashtra 2. Umma Kulsum Amer Pathan ..Respondents Mr. Y. G. Kasab h/f Mr. P.P. Girl, Advocate for Applicants Mr. P. M. Patil, Advocate for Respondent No. 2 Mr. N. R. Dayama, 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 At the outset, it must be recorded that the application for qua Applicant Nos. 1, 2, and 4 has already been withdrawn and therefore appllication remains for consideration to the extent of applicant no. 3, 5 and 6. 2. By way this application, Applicants no. 3, 5 and 6 seek quashment of First Information Report bearing Crime No. 0256/ 2024, registered at Rural Police Station District Nanded for offences punishable under Sections 323, 506, 504, 498-A, and read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, order of issuing process passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nanded District Nanded and the subsequent proceedings pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class in RCC No. 1018 of 2024. Page 1 of 4 2026:BHC-AUG:46457-DB cri.applln.4754.2024.odt 3. It is the case of prosecution that Umme Kulsum/ Informant lodged the First Information Report against the applicants. According to her, the marriage between the informant and applicant no. 1 was solemnized on 01.06.2023 as per Islamic rites, and the informant's parents spent Rs. 11 lakhs for the wedding. From 12.10.2023 onwards, applicant no. 2 and applicant no. 4 allegedly subjected the informant to physical and mental harassment and prohibited her from contacting her family. Thereafter, during the ongoing construction of the matrimonial house, her father-in-law demanded Rs. 5 lakhs from her father; later, the informant's father gave Rs. 4 lakhs in two installments. It is contended that the applicants allegedly subjected the informant to starvation, verbal abuse, physical assault, and death threats to compel her to bring the remaining Rs. 5 lakhs from her father. Therefore, the present FIR came to be registered 4. The counsel for the applicants submits that allegations in FIR against the applicants are completely vague, general and omnibus.Applicant Nos. 5 and 6 are married sisters-in-law who reside separately in different cities. It is contended that the present crime is riddled with material contradictions and inconsistencies. While the FIR attributes an alleged demand of Rs. 5 lakhs for house construction to the father-in-law, he has not been made an accused in the case. Whereas in Domestic Violence application PWDVA No. 44 of 2024, the informant mentioned that the claim of demand of Rs 10 lakh being made by the husband. It is contended that the marriage was solemnized on 1.06.2023, no grievance was recorded for four months, filling of the First Information Report is clearly an afterthought. Page 2 of 4 cri.applln.4754.2024.odt 5. The counsel for the State and the counsel for the informant strongly opposed the application, submitting that the present crime discloses a cognizable offense demonstrating specific instances of assault by the in-laws of the informant due to the non-fulfillment of dowry demands. They further contended that any witness discrepancies or variances between the First Information Report and the Domestic Violence Application regarding the attribution of demands are matters of defense and evidence to be tested during the course of the trial. 6. Upon a perusal of the record and the submissions advanced by both sides, this Court finds that the allegations in the FIR as against the remaining applicants are omnibus and vague in nature. The application on behalf of Applicant Nos. 1, 2, and 4 has already been withdrawn. Applicant No. 3 is the brother-in-law of the informant, whereas Applicant Nos. 5 and 6 are the married sisters-in-law who reside separately. Relying on the judgments of 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 relatives who reside separately from the matrimonial home of the informant cannot be roped into criminal prosecution. Furthermore, the allegations in the First Information Report against Applicant Nos. 3, 5, and 6 lack specific particulars. After perusal of the record this court finds that no offense is made out against them. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the landmark case of State of Haryana v. Chh. Bhajan Lal (1992) (cri) 426, continuation of criminal proceedings against them is an abuse of the process of law and Accordingly, the application is allowed to the extent of Applicant Nos. 3, 5, and 6. Page 3 of 4 cri.applln.4754.2024.odt 7. In view of the above, application stands allowed in terms of prayer clauses ‘B’, ‘B-1’, and ‘C-1’. (R. M. JOSHI, J.) Malani