ARCHANA SUDHIR PATIL AND ORSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

                                                                                 8-APL-1063-2019 (CR).odt




                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                          CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
                                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                      CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1063 OF 2019

                      1.         Archana Sudhir Patil                 ]
                                 Age: 40 years, Occ: Govt. Servant    ]
                                 R/o. R.L. 190, G Block, MIDC,        ]
                                 Sambhaji Nagar, Near Birds Villa     ]
         Digitally
         signed by
         SHAILAJA
                                 Garden, Chinchwad, Pune – 411 029    ]
SHAILAJA SHRIKANT
SHRIKANT HALKUDE
HALKUDE Date:
         2026.09.15
         18:24:53
         +0530
                      2.         Smita Manohar Nikam                  ]
                                 Age: 42 years, Occ: Doctor,          ]
                                 R/o, R.K. Nagar, Kolhapur,           ]
                                 Tal. Karveer, District: Kolhapur     ]


                      3.         Pranali Vinayak Salunkhe             ]
                                 Age: 33 years, Occ: Housewife,       ]
                                 R/o. 934, Krishna Niwas,             ]
                                 Gaonbhag, Sangli, Tal. Miraj,        ]
                                 District: Sangli                     ]

                      4.         Jyoti Vinay Pawar                    ]
                                 Age: 36 Years, Occ: Teacher,         ]
                                 R/o. Killa Bhag, Near Tahsildar      ]
                                 Miraj, Tal. Miraj, Dist: Sangli      ]     Applicants
                                                                     (Org. Accused Nos.8 to 11)

                                       versus

                      1.         The State of Maharashtra             ]
                                 Through Senior Police Inspector      ]
                                 Radhanagari Police Station,          ]
                                 District: Kolhapur                   ]
                                 (C.R. No.0069 of 2019)               ]

                      2.         Subhangi Ajit Khorate                ]
                                 Age:35 years, Occ: Housewife,        ]
                                 R/o. Kalamba, Karveer,               ]
                                 District: Kolhapur                   ]     Respondents
                      Shailaja                                                               Page 1 of 8
                                                                 8-APL-1063-2019 (CR).odt




                                     …..
Mr. Kuldeep Nikam a/w Mr. Pratik Patil, Advocates for Applicants.
Mr. Pankaj P. Deokar, A.P.P, for Respondent No.1 – State.
Mr. Rahul P. Walvekar a/w Mr. Kunal Nalawade, Advocate for Respondent
No.2.
                                     …..

                                 CORAM : ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.
                                 DATE  : SEPTEMBER 11, 2026

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1.           Learned Advocate for the Applicants seeks leave to amend the

prayer clause, as the charge-sheet has already been filed in the present case.

2.           Leave as prayed for is granted to amend the prayer clause.

Amendment to be carried out forthwith.

3.           The Applicants have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “Cr.P.C.”),

to seek quashing of the First Information Report (for short, “ F.I.R.”) bearing

C.R. No. 69 of 2019 registered on 21 st March, 2019 with Radhanagari Police

Station, District Kolhapur, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A,

354-A, 354-B and 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

(for short, “I.P.C.”), Charge-sheet No.100 of 2019 and Regular Criminal

Case No.77 of 2019 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First

Class, Radhanagari. (for short, the “learned Magistrate”).



Shailaja                                                                     Page 2 of 8
                                                                   8-APL-1063-2019 (CR).odt



4.           Heard learned Advocate for the Applicants, learned A.P.P. for

Respondent No.1 – State and learned Advocate for Respondent No. 2 and

perused the record.

5.           It appears that by order dated 28th March, 2023, the Application

has been ‘Admitted’ and interim relief granted by order dated 10 th January,

2022 was continued.

6.           On 21st March, 2019, an F.I.R. was lodged against the

Applicants and other accused, alleging that the Applicants, along with the co-

accused, subjected Respondent No.2 to cruelty on account of demand for

dowry. It is further alleged that, in the years 2015 and 2018, the Applicants

abused the first informant in filthy language and assaulted her.

7.           Based on the aforesaid F.I.R., an offence came to be registered

against the Applicants and other accused for the offences punishable under

Sections 498-A, 354-A, 354-B and 504 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C.

8.           Feeling aggrieved by the registration of the said F.I.R., the

Applicants have preferred this Application seeking quashing of the same.

9.           It is pertinent to note that the Applicants are the cousin sisters-

in-law of Respondent No.2. The marriages of Applicant Nos.1 and 2 were

solemnised before the marriage of Respondent No.2 with Ajit Khorate

(Accused No.1), which took place on 10th June 2006. The marriage of

Applicant No. 4 was also solemnised on the very same day. Applicant No.3
Shailaja                                                                       Page 3 of 8
                                                               8-APL-1063-2019 (CR).odt



married in 2011. Thus, it is evident that the Applicants were already married

and residing separately even before the marriage of Respondent No. 2, except

Applicant No. 3, whose marriage was solemnised subsequently in 2011.

There are no specific and individual allegations against any of the Applicants

attributing to them causing cruelty or harassment meted out to Respondent

No. 2 in connection with demand for dowry.

10.         Upon perusal of the record, prima facie, it appears that the

allegations against the Applicants are vague, general and omnibus in nature.

There are no specific allegations against the Applicants showing that they

subjected Respondent No.2 to cruelty on account of demand for dowry. There

is also no specific allegation as to what act was committed by the Applicants

against Respondent No.2 or in what manner they harassed her.

11.         The allegations against the Applicants are from the years 2015

and 2018. However, the F.I.R. does not denote any specific incident or

attribute any specific role to the Applicants. It is undisputed that the

Applicants reside separately with their respective husbands. Nothing has

been placed on record to show that during the years 2015 or 2018, the

Applicants had abused or assaulted Respondent No.2. Furthermore,

Respondent No.2 has not stated any specific incident of harassment allegedly

caused by the Applicants. The statements of the witnesses recorded during

the investigation also do not indicate any specific incident or any particular

Shailaja                                                                   Page 4 of 8
                                                                              8-APL-1063-2019 (CR).odt



role played by the Applicants. No independent witness has stated that the

Applicants were involved in the alleged offence.

12.                On perusal of the statements of the witnesses, it appears that

they do not disclose any specific incident of harassment at the hands of the

Applicants. The statements appear vague, general, and stereotypical.

Therefore, prima facie, the said statements do not inspire confidence to

demonstrate that they were involved in the present crime.

13.                Having considered the rival contentions of the learned

Advocates for the parties and gone through the record, I would like to

reproduce the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the following

judgments.

           (i)     Geeta Mehrotra and another versus State of U.P and another1,
           (ii)    Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam and others versus State of Bihar
                   and others,2
           (iii)   Dara Lakshmi Narayana & others versus State of Telangana &
                   Another,3


14.                In Geeta Mehrotra and another (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court

has categorically observed that:

                     "if the contents of the first information report did not
                     disclose specific allegations against the brother and sister
                     of the complainant's husband to make them liable, for
                     bickering between non- applicant No. 2 and her husband,
                     except the casual reference of their names, it would not be
                     just to direct them to go through the protracting procedure,
                     so also by merely making the general allegation that they
1     2012 (10) SCC 741
2     (2022) 6 SCC 599
3     2024 SCC OnLine SC 3682
Shailaja                                                                                  Page 5 of 8
                                                                            8-APL-1063-2019 (CR).odt



               were involved for physical and mental torture of the
               complainant without any allegation of their active
               involvement or mentioning the single incident against them
               as also the fact as to how they could be motivated the
               demand of dowry when they are only related to husband as
               brother or sister, and therefore, quashed the proceedings
               against them."

                                                              (Emphasis supplied)

15.          In addition, in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and Others, (supra), the

Hon’ble Apex Court has held that:


               "The Courts should be careful in the proceedings against
               the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial
               disputes and dowry deaths and must keep in mind that
               relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the
               basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of
               their involvement in the crime are made out."

               It is further observed that "the ultimate object of justice is
               to find out the truth, punish the guilty, and protect the
               innocent. To find out the truth is a herculean task in the
               majority of these complaints. The tendency to implicate the
               husband and all his inmate's/immediate relations is also
               not uncommon. At times, even in the conclusions of a
               criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The
               courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing
               with these complaints and must consider pragmatic
               realities while dealing with matrimonial cases. The
               allegations of the harassment of the husband's close
               relations, who had been living in different cities and never
               visited or rarely the place where the complainant resided,
               would have an entirely different complexion. The
               allegations of the complaint are required to be scrutinized
               with great care and circumspection."

16.          The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dara Lakshmi

Narayana & others (supra) after considering the parameters laid down in the

decision in "Bhajanlal's Case" and other various decisions of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court, has observed that:
Shailaja                                                                                Page 6 of 8
                                                                       8-APL-1063-2019 (CR).odt



               "A mere reference to the names of family members in a
               criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute,
               without specific allegations indicating their active
               involvement, should be nipped in the bud. It is a well-
               recognized fact, borne out of judicial experience, that
               there is often a tendency to implicate all the members of
               the husband's family when domestic disputes arise out of
               matrimonial discord. Such generalized and sweeping
               accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or
               particularized allegations cannot form the basis for
               criminal prosecution. Courts must exercise caution in
               such cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions and the
               legal process and avoid unnecessarily harassing innocent
               family members.

                                                 (Emphasis Supplied)


17.          Upon a bare perusal of the law laid down by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in the aforesaid three judgments, it is evident that the case at

hand is squarely covered by the said decisions. The ratio laid down therein is,

therefore, applicable to the case at hand.

18.          In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in

my view, it would not be appropriate to permit the proceedings before the

learned Trial Court to continue against the Applicants. Continuing the

proceedings against the Applicants would amount to an abuse of the process

of law and would not serve the ends of justice. It would, therefore, be

appropriate to exercise the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to

quash the said F.I.R. as well as the criminal proceedings arising therefrom and

pending before the learned Trial Court.

19.          Consequently, the Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause

(a), which reads thus;
Shailaja                                                                           Page 7 of 8
                                                                    8-APL-1063-2019 (CR).odt



           a)    That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash and set
           aside the FIR No. 0069 of 2019 registered against the Applicants by
           the present Respondent No. 2 on 21/03/2019 with Radhnagari
           Police Station, District: Kolhapur under the provisions of Section
           498-A, 354-A, 354-B, 504 r/w. 34 of I.P.C. along with the
           chargesheet bearing No. 100/2019 as well as Regular Criminal Case
           No.77 of 2019 arising out of the same qua the Applicants.



20.              The Rule is made absolute. No order as to costs.

21.              Inform the concerned court accordingly.

22.              The Application is disposed of.




                                                      (ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.)




Shailaja                                                                        Page 8 of 8