APPLN-3510-2024.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3510/2024 1. Rahul Ramdas Dhanawade (Husband) 2. Ramdas Mhasu Dhanawade (Father in law) 3. Sunita Ramdas Dhanawade (Mother in law) 4. Dipali Dilip Vetal (Sister in law) 5. Varsha Indranil Kuskar (Husband of sister in law) 6. Indranil Shantilal Kuskar (Husband of sister in law) 7. Sonali Navnath Kusalkar (Sister in law) 8. Navnath Suresh Kasalkar (Husband of Sister in law) 9. Chanda Suresh Kusalkar (Grandmother in law) ...Applicants Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. Komal Rahul Dhanawade ...Respondents …. Ms. S. G. Sonawane, Advocate for applicant Mr. K. D. Pote, Advocate for Respondent No. 2 Mr. S. B. Jadhav, APP for Respondent - State …. CORAM : R.M. JOSHI, J DATE : SEPTEMBER 16, 2026 P. C. : 1. At the outset, it must be recorded that the application qua Applicant No. 1 stood disposed of as withdrawn by this Court’s order dated 29 November 2024. 2. It is brought to the notice of the Court that during the pendency of this application, Applicant No. 2 - Ramdas Mhasu Dhanawade, has passed away, consequently, the proceedings stand abated qua Applicant No. 2. 2026:BHC-AUG:42767-DB APPLN-3510-2024.odt 3. By this application, Applicant Nos. 3 to 6 seek quashment of First Information Report bearing Crime No. 0476/ 2024, registered at Parner Police Station, District Ahmednagar, for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, and 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, along with the charge-sheet and the subsequent proceedings pending before the learned Civil Judge Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate First Class in RCC No. 288 of 2024, including the order issuing summons. 4. It is the case of the prosecution that the Komal Rahul Dhanawade, lodged a First Information Report against her in-laws. The marriage between the informant and Applicant No. 1 was solemnized on 21.12.2023 as per Hindu rites and customs. At the time of the wedding, the parents of the informant gifted gold jewellery and household articles. According to the informant, within a few days of the marriage, the in-laws subjected her to physical and mental harassment, and the husband of the informant demanded a dowry of Rs. 40 lakh from her parents for the purpose of purchasing a flat in Pune. It is further alleged that due to the non-fulfillment of this demand, the informant was starved, ill-treated, and eventually driven out of her matrimonial home, while her gold ornaments were retained by the applicant no. 1. Consequently, the subject FIR came to be registered against the present applicants. Upon completion of the APPLN-3510-2024.odt investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed, and summons were issued to the applicants in RCC No. 288 of 2024. 5. Learned Counsel for the Applicants submitted that the allegations in the FIR reveal no specific dates or time of the alleged incidents and that the accusations are a mere afterthought. It was further contended that the allegations are vague and lack evidence of physical or mental harassment that would endanger life or constitute cruelty for unlawful dowry demands. The counsel submitted that the informant has falsely implicated all family members, including married sisters-in-law, brothers-in-law, and an elderly grandmother-in-law, emphasizing that these individuals reside separately. Furthermore, it was highlighted that Respondent No. 2 failed to raise any allegations regarding a demand for dowry during her appearance before the Women Grievance Cell. The counsel contended that vague and omnibus allegations leveled against distant family members in a matrimonial dispute, in the absence of specific overt acts attributed to each individual, fail to justify the continuation of criminal proceedings against them, and allowing such proceedings to persist would amount to an abuse of the process of law. She placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Geeta Mehrotra v. State of UP (2012) 10 SCC 741. Page 3 of 5 APPLN-3510-2024.odt 6. Learned APP and learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 submitted that the First Information Report unequivocally discloses specific, prima facie ingredients of physical and mental cruelty, unlawful harassment, and a continuous demand for money. It was further contended that the non- fulfillment of an unlawful demand for dowry amounting to Rs. 40 lakh for the purchase of a flat in Pune was directed against the informant, thereby subjecting her to physical assault, verbal abuse, and deliberate starvation. Additionally, allegations in the FIR demonstrate specific roles and active participation attributed to the husband and the in-laws regarding the demand for dowry, physical harassment and the unlawful retention of her gold ornaments. Furthermore, it was contended that the involvement of the applicants is a matter for decision in the trial, and that the exercise of the inherent powers of this Court would deprive the informant of her legitimate right to prosecute the offenders for matrimonial cruelty. 7. Perusal of the record and rival submissions of the both sides that the allegations in FIR against the distant relatives are entirely omnibus, vague and there is no active participation in the alleged harassment and demand of dowry. The settled law laid down in the Geeta Mehrotra vs. State of UP (2012) 10 SCC 741 and Kahkashan Kausar vs. State of Bihar (2022) 6 SCC 599 where the relatives who reside separately cannot be forced to face trial based on vague and omnibus allegation. Furthermore, the material APPLN-3510-2024.odt placed on the record clearly reveals that the present crime registered against the applicants is a case of over-impleadment arising out of the matrimonial dispute, as several Applicants, including married sisters-in-law and brothers- in-law who were married long before marriage of Applicant No. 1 and reside separately in Malegaon City, were roped into the proceedings without establishing any direct involvement in the couple's matrimonial life. The court observed that these general statements do not show any specific demands of dowry or physical harm against these relatives. In the case of State of Haryana vs. Chh. Bhajan Lal, (1992) SCC (cri) 426 by continuing criminal proceedings against the applicants would constitute a clear abuse of the judicial process. 8. In view of the above, Application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses ‘B’, ‘B-A’, and ‘B-B’. (R. M. JOSHI, J.) Malani