Bombay High Court
AMOL ARUN PACHPUTE AND ANRversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Disposal
- Partly Allowed
Holding
The Court quashed the FIR and charge‑sheet against Applicants Nos. 2‑7, holding that the allegations were vague, lacked specific participation, and proceeding would constitute an abuse of process.
Summary
The applicants (in‑laws of the complainant) filed an application invoking the Court's inherent jurisdiction to quash FIR No. 519 of 2021 and the charge‑sheet filed in RCC No. 317 of 2022, alleging that the FIR contained vague, omnibus accusations and no specific role for them under Sections 323, 498‑A, 504 and 506 IPC. The complainant alleged dowry demands, cruelty and physical abuse by the applicants. The Court found that the FIR and charge‑sheet lacked specific allegations against Applicants Nos. 2‑7, that the statements of witnesses were likewise vague, and that Supreme Court precedents (Dara Lakshmi Narayana, Geeta Mehrotra, Kahkashan Kausar) require particularised charges before proceeding. Consequently, the Court held that continuing the prosecution would be an abuse of process and exercised its power under Section 482 CrPC/Section 528 BNSS 2023 to quash the FIR and charge‑sheet against Applicants Nos. 2‑7, while the application concerning Applicant 1 was dismissed as withdrawn.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR and charge‑sheet against the in‑laws can be quashed on the ground of vague and non‑specific allegations under Section 498‑A IPC.
- Whether the Court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC (and Section 528 BNSS 2023) to quash criminal proceedings in the absence of specific incriminating material.
- Whether the allegations disclosed in the FIR disclose the commission of offences under Sections 323, 498‑A, 504, 506 IPC read with Section 34.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 528
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 323, 34, 498-A, 504, 506
Subjects
- dowry harassment
- Section 498-A
- inherent jurisdiction
- quash FIR
- vague allegations
- abuse of process
- criminal procedure
- family members
Judgment
23.APL.1085.2021.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1085 OF 2021
1. Amol Arun Pachpute (Husband of Complainant)
Age : 32 Years, Occu : Engineer,
R/o. Kashti, Tal. Shrigonda,
Dist. Ahmednagar.
At Post R/o. Laxmi Green County,
Uttamnagar, Pune.
2. Arun Kashinath Pachpute, (Father-in-Law)
Age : 57 Years, Occu : Agriculturist,
R/o. Kashti, Tal. Shrigonda,
Dist. Ahmednagar.
3. Damayanti Arun Pachpute, (Mother-in-Law)
Age : 50 Years, Occu : Household,
Ro. Kashti, Tal. Shrigonda,
Dist. Ahmednagar.
4. Rahul Arun Pachpute, (Brother-in-Law)
Age : 34 Years, Occu : Diary Business,
R/o. Kashti, Tal. Shrigonda,
Dist. Ahmednagar.
5. Madhuri Arun Pachpute, (wife of Brother-in-Law)
Age : 29 Years, Occu : Household,
R/o. Kashti, Tal. Shrigonda,
Dist. Ahmednagar.
6. Shrikant Arun Pacnpute, (Brother-in-Law)
Age : 29 Years, Occu : Diary Business,
R/o. Kashti, Tal. Shrigonda, Dist. Ahmednagar.
At Post R/o. Dam View Residency,
Kondhawada-Dhawade, Pune, Dist. Pune.
7. Akanksha Shrikant Pachpute (wife of Brother-in-Law)
Age : 21 Years, Occu : Household
R/o. Kashti, Tal. Shrigonda,
Shrikant Malani Page 1 of 12
23.APL.1085.2021.odt
Dist. Ahmednagar.
At Post R/o. Dam View Residency,
Kondhawada-Dhawade Pune,
Dist. Pune. ...APPLICANTS
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through the Police Station In-charge,
Police Station, Virag, Tal. Barshi,
Dist. Solapur.
2. Devai Amol Pachpute,
Age : 28 Years, Occu : Household,
R/o. Kalambwadi (Pa), Ta. Barshi,
Dist. Solapur ...RESPONDENTS
***
Mr. Maghdeep Oak, Advocate for the Applicants.
Ms. Priyanka S. Rane, APP for Respondent – State.
Mr. Abhijit D. Kulkarni (Through V.C.) a/w Mr. Abhay A. Jadhavar,
Advocate for Respondent No.2.
***
CORAM : ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.
DATE : AUGUST 28, 2026
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally
with the consent of learned counsel for the parties at the admission stage.
2. The Applicants invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to
quash the First Information Report bearing Crime No. 519 of 2021,
registered on 15th October 2021 with the Vairag Police Station, Tal. Barshi,
Dist. Solapur, (for short “FIR”) for the offences punishable under Sections
323, 498-A, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 (for short, “IPC”) and the filing of the charge-sheet pursuant to the said
Shrikant Malani Page 2 of 12
23.APL.1085.2021.odt
FIR, which was numbered as Regular Criminal Case No. 317 of 2022 (for
short, “R.C.C. No. 317 of 2022”), have preferred this Application.
3. It is pertinent to note that during the course of the arguments,
learned counsel for the Applicants, on instructions, seeks leave to withdraw
the Application insofar as Applicant No.1 is concerned, who is the husband
of Respondent No.2. His statement is accepted.
4. In view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the
Applicants, the Application is dismissed as withdrawn insofar as Applicant No. 1
is concerned. However, the Application survives insofar as Applicant Nos. 2
to 7 are concerned.
SUCCINCTLY, THE FACTS ARE AS UNDER:
5. The marriage of Applicant No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 was
solemnised on 17th June 2017 at Madha, Dist. Solapur. (However, in the
Marriage Registration Certificate and Marriage Card, the date of Marriage is
mentioned as 18th June 2017) Thereafter, she lived with the Applicants till
August 2021, as alleged in the complaint, and, as per the contention of the
Applicant No. 1, Respondent No. 2 left his company in April 2020. Applicant
No. 2 is the Father-in-Law, Applicant No. 3 is the Mother-in-Law, Applicant
No. 4 is the Brother-in-Law, Applicant No. 5 is the wife of the Brother-in-
Law, Applicant No. 6 is the Brother-in-Law, Applicant No. 7 is the wife of
the Brother-in-Law, and Applicant No.1 is the husband.
Shrikant Malani Page 3 of 12
23.APL.1085.2021.odt
6. On 15th October 2021, Respondent No. 2 lodged the report
against the Applicants, alleging that after the marriage, the Applicants
subjected her to cruelty on account of the demand of dowry from her and her
parents to start the Dairy business for her brother-in-law, Shrikant, at Pune.
The Applicants were making taunting remarks to her about her father's
financial status and also treated her in a humiliating manner. They kept her
hungry every now and then, picked a quarrel over it, and also recorded
videos of her. They were harassing her. Her husband took her to the
psychiatrists at the counselling centre without any reason and thereby caused
cruelty to her. On 24th September 2021, they came to her maternal home,
abused and beat her and also demanded dowry of ₹10,00,000/- to purchase a
flat in Pune. Based on the FIR, offences were registered vide Crime No. 519
of 2021 with the Vairag Police Station, Tal. Barshi, Dist. Solapur. Feeling
aggrieved by the registration of the said FIR, they have invoked this Court's
inherent jurisdiction.
7. During the pendency of the Application, the Investigating
Officer has filed the charge-sheet in the Trial Court, which has been
registered as R.C.C. No.317 of 2022. Therefore, the Applicants have
amended the Application and placed the charge-sheet on record and also
sought relief to quash the said charge-sheet.
Shrikant Malani Page 4 of 12
23.APL.1085.2021.odt
8. The learned counsel for the Applicants vehemently contended
that the allegations levelled against the Applicants are vague and general in
nature and that no specific role of Applicant Nos. 2 to 7 is attributed in the
FIR. The allegations made by Respondent No. 2 are reckless and fustian.
However, they have been falsely implicated in the present crime. No
incriminating material was found against them in the charge-sheet to rope
them into the present crime. The allegations levelled in the FIR are
concocted, false, and frivolous, made with a view to falsely implicating them
in the present crime. Lastly, he argued that even if the allegations levelled in
the FIR are taken as they are, they do not constitute an offence under Section
498-A of the IPC against Applicant Nos. 2 to 7. Therefore, he urges quashing
of the said FIR as well as charge-sheet against Applicant Nos. 2 to 7.
9. On the other hand, Ms. Rane, learned APP for the Respondent –
State, as well as Mr. Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.
2, strenuously opposed the Application on the ground that the allegations
made in the FIR constitute an offence under Section 498-A of the IPC. There
are specific allegations against the Applicants that they have demanded
dowry from the informant and her parents to purchase the flat. Similarly, the
in-laws were taunting her on account of her parents’ financial condition and
also abused and beat her. Therefore, the ingredients of Section 498-A of the
IPC are attracted against the Applicants. As such, they have argued that the
Shrikant Malani Page 5 of 12
23.APL.1085.2021.odt
FIR prima facie discloses the commission of the offences under Sections
498-A, 323, 504 and 506 of the IPC. Hence, they have urged for dismissal of
the Application.
10. Having heard the rival contentions of the parties and having
gone through the record, prima facie, it appears that the allegations against
Applicant Nos. 2 to 7 are vague, omnibus and general in nature. No specific
role of the Applicants has stated in the FIR as to what they have done; rather,
the allegations are general and omnibus in nature, like instances ßlkljdMhy
yksdkauh eyk vkeps xkokdMhy xjhchP;k ifjLFkhrh o:u viekukLin okx.kqd
nsoq ykxys o lrr Vkse.ks ek: ykxys o ykWdMkÅups dkj.k d:u
eyk ,dVhyk lrr v/kque/kwu mik’kh Bsoq ykxys o R;k dkj.kko:u HkkaM.k
dk<qu ek>h OghMhvks ‘kqVhax d: ykxys- Þ Similarly, in every sentence, it is
stated that the people from the in-laws used to subject her to cruelty on
account of the demand of dowry.
11. It is also alleged that Applicant Nos. 2 to 7 had instigated
Applicant No. 1 to take her to the psychiatrists at the counselling centre.
However, no specific allegations appear against them regarding the role they
played or how they instigated Applicant No.1, or who instigated Applicant
No.1. Moreover, the complaint did not provide any specific details or
describe any particular incident of harassment by Applicant Nos. 2 to 7.
Besides, prima facie, no allegations appear against Applicant Nos. 4, 5 and 7.
Shrikant Malani Page 6 of 12
23.APL.1085.2021.odt
12. Furthermore, the Investigating Officer has not recorded the
statement of any independent witness to demonstrate that Respondent No.2
was subjected to cruelty at the hands of Applicant Nos.2 to 7. The witnesses
whose statements were recorded have not provided any details or described
any particular instances of harassment by Applicant Nos. 2 to 7, but their
statements appear vague, omnibus, and stereotypical; therefore, they do not
prima facie inspire confidence to demonstrate that Applicant Nos. 2 to 7 were
involved in the present crime. Therefore, they have not alleged any specific
act done by Applicant Nos. 2 to 7, which constitutes the offence under
Section 498-A of the IPC. Apart from that, they have not mentioned the time,
date, place or manner in which the alleged harassment occurred. Thus, the
FIR and the entire charge-sheet lack concrete and precise allegations.
13. It is pertinent to note that initially Applicant No.1 and
Respondent No.2 were residing separately at Pune, as Applicant No. 1 was
working in ‘Synerzip Softtech India Pvt. Ltd. At that time, Respondent No. 2
was also working. However, during the COVID-19 pandemic, she came to
the matrimonial house in Kosti, Tq. Shrigonda. After the lockdown, they
came to Pune again. In such an eventuality, a mere vague and omnibus
allegation that they instigated Applicant No.1, without disclosing any specific
role played by them, cannot be said to establish that they subjected
Respondent No. 2 to cruelty on account of a demand of dowry or that they
Shrikant Malani Page 7 of 12
23.APL.1085.2021.odt
caused harassment to her with a view to forcing her to meet any unlawful
demand for any property or valuable security, particularly when in the FIR
she herself stated that her parents’ financial condition was poor and,
therefore, it creates a doubt about the demand of dowry of ₹ 10,00,000/- to
them.
14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dara Lakshmi
Narayana & others V/s State of Telangana & Another 1, 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 :-
“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)
15. The facts in the case at hand are identical with the facts
reproduced in Dara Lakshmi’s (supra) case, and therefore, the mandate laid
down in the said judgment squarely applies to the case at hand. In such
circumstances, they cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution, and it
1 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3682
Shrikant Malani Page 8 of 12
23.APL.1085.2021.odt
would be an abuse of the process of law in the absence of specific allegations
made against each of them.
16. Apart from the above, in Geeta Mehrotra and Another V. State of
U.P. and Another2, 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 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)
17. In the case discussed above, there are no specific allegations
against Applicant Nos. 2 to 7, nor are there specific allegations against them
that they demanded the dowry at any time from the deceased or her parents
or that they were actively involved. On the contrary, the accusations against
them are vague and general in nature, namely, that Applicant Nos. 2 to 7
were instigating Applicant No.1 to take her to the counselling centre or that
they have demanded the dowry. Therefore, the observations made in the
above-cited judgment are squarely applicable to the case at hand.
2 2012(10) SCC 741
Shrikant Malani Page 9 of 12
23.APL.1085.2021.odt
18. In addition, in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and Others V. The
State of Bihar and Others3, reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599, 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.”
19. Thus, I find that the case at hand is squarely covered by the
decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as referred to above.
20. In the light of the aforesaid discussion and the law laid down by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in my view, it would not be appropriate to
continue the proceedings before the learned Trial Court against Applicant
Nos. 2 to 7. The continuation of the proceedings against them would result in
an abuse of the process of the Law and would not serve the ends of justice.
Therefore, in the exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C./ Section
3 (2022) 6 SCC 599
Shrikant Malani Page 10 of 12
23.APL.1085.2021.odt
528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, it would be
appropriate to quash and set aside the First Information Report registered
with the Vairag Police Station, Tal. Barshi, Dist. Solapur, and the filing of the
charge-sheet pursuant to the FIR and numbered as R.C.C. No.317 of 2022,
against Applicant Nos. 2 to 7.
21. As a result, the Application is partly allowed in terms of Prayer
Clause (A) and [B-1] so far as Applicant Nos. 2 to 7. However, the Application
against Applicant No. 1 has already been dismissed as withdrawn.
22. For clarification, prayer clauses (A) and [B-1] are as under :-
(A) Be pleased to quash and set aside First Information Report
bearing No. 0519 of 2021 registered on 15/10/2021 with the Police
Station, Virag, Tal: Barshi Dist: Solapur under section 323, 34, 498-A,
504, 506 of Indian Penal Code. (Exhibit “A”, page).
[B-1] Be pleased to quash and set aside Charge sheet No.46 of 2022
and further proceeding in respect of RCC 317/2022 arising out of the
FIR-Crime No. 519 of 2021 registered on 15/10/2021 with the Police
Station, Vairag, Tq:Barshi, Dist: Solapur under section 498-A, 323, 504,
506, r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code (Exhibit “D” page no. 42).”
Shrikant Malani Page 11 of 12
23.APL.1085.2021.odt
23. The Rule is made partly absolute in the above terms. No order as
to cost.
24. Inform the concerned Court accordingly.
25. The Application is disposed of.
(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.)
Digitally signed
by TALLE
TALLE SHUBHAM
ASHOKRAO
SHUBHAM Date:
ASHOKRAO 2026.08.31
18:30:59
+0530
Shrikant Malani Page 12 of 12
Checking your session…