KAMALBAI WD/O JEEVANRAO PATILversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

2026:BHC-AUG:42416-DB
                                                                       cri.appln.1385.23.odt



                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                             CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1385 OF 2023


          1. Kamlabai Jeevanrao Patil
          2. Dushant S/o Jeevanrao Patil
          3. Shalini W/o Apparao Biradar
          4.Apparao S/o Pandharinath Biradar                       ...Applicants

                    Versus

          1.The State of Maharashtra
          2.Shital W/o Jaiwant Patil                               ...Respondents
                                               ...
          Mr. S. N. Janakwade, Advocate for applicant
          Ms. P. J. Bharad, APP for Respondent-State
          Mr. C. M. Ghodake, Advocate for Respondent No.2 (Appointed)
          Mr. J. S. Jain, Advocate for Respondent No. 2 (Discharged)
                                               ...

                                                           CORAM   : R.M. JOSHI, J
                                                           DATE    : SEPTEMBER 08, 2026

          P. C. :


          1.             By this application, the applicants seek quashment of First

          Information Report (FIR) Crime No. 0064/2023, registered at the Nilanga

          Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, and

          506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, along with Charge-sheet

          No. 53/2023 and the subsequent proceedings pending before the Judicial

          Magistrate First Class, Nilanga, District Latur, bearing RCC No. 0360/2023.


          2.             According to the prosecution, the marriage between Applicant

          No. 1's son, Jaiwant Jivanrao Patil, and Respondent No. 2 was solemnized


                                             Page 1 of 5
                                                             cri.appln.1385.23.odt



on 01.02.2015 as per Hindu rites and rituals. The father of Respondent No.

2 incurred substantial marriage expenses, provided household articles, and

gold ornaments. After the marriage, the complainant cohabited with her

husband and in-laws in District Bidar, where she was treated well for about

one year. Thereafter, Applicant No. 1 allegedly began subjecting her to

physical and mental harassment over domestic issues. The accused persons

also demanded a dowry of Rs. 5 lakh from her father to purchase

agricultural land for Applicant No. 2 i.e. the brother-in-law of Respondent

No. 2, Dushant Jivanrao Patil. Furthermore, the complainant alleges that

Applicant No. 3 i.e. sister-in-law, Shalini and her husband i.e. Applicant No.

4 frequently visited the matrimonial home in Bidar, repeatedly subjected her

to verbal abuse, insisted on the illegal demand of dowry, and actively

provoked her husband and Applicant No. 1 to ill-treat her. Even after the

complainant’s father paid Rs. 3 lakh toward purchasing agricultural land,

the in-laws allegedly continued to harass, abuse, and physically assault the

complainant continuously between 10.05.2016 and 03.03.2023. Owing to

the non-fulfillment of the remaining financial demands and alleged threats

to her life, the complainant lodged the present FIR against her in-laws.


3.          The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the

allegations in the FIR vague and that these proceedings have been instituted

solely to harass the applicants. It is contended that the present application



                                  Page 2 of 5
                                                              cri.appln.1385.23.odt



arises from a personal vendetta and was maliciously filed following property

disputes, wherein the husband of Respondent No. 2 sought to deny

Applicant No. 1’s 1/4th share in the ancestral property, leading to the filing

of a civil partition suit, namely O.S. No. 51/2022. It is further contended

that the applicants reside separately and that the FIR fails to attribute any

specific role or dates of the alleged ill-treatment to the present applicants.

The statements recorded during the investigation are stereotyped and lack

independent verification. Additionally, there is an unexplained and

inordinate delay in lodging the complaint. The learned counsel for the

applicants placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

in State of Haryana v.s Bhajan Lal, (1992) SCC (cri) 426.


4.           The Learned APP and the counsel for Respondent No. 2 /

Informant vehemently opposed the grant of any relief to the present

applicants. It was submitted that the registration of the FIR is well-

supported by concrete and material evidence on record. The allegations in

the FIR clearly disclose a prima facie case of persistent physical violence and

mental cruelty, the veracity of which can only be adjudicated upon at the

stage of trial. As regards the delay in lodging the FIR, it was explained that

the same was on account of genuine social pressure, fear, and sincere efforts

made    by   the   complainant   to    reconcile   the   matrimonial     dispute.

Furthermore, the applicants’ plea of separate residence involves disputed



                                   Page 3 of 5
                                                                cri.appln.1385.23.odt



questions of fact and the same must be substantiated through evidence

during the course of the trial. Learned counsel for respondent no. 2 further

submitted that the civil property case bearing O.S. No. 51/2022 does not

stop a criminal case for cruelty and harassment under Section 498-A of the

IPC. In fact, the civil court’s decision confirming the husband's ¼ th share

only proves that there is deep hostility between the parties. The informant

has been suffering from harassment from 2016 to 2023, which encompasses

property disputes, police complaints, and the present court proceedings.

Therefore, granting any protection to the applicants would cause serious

harm to the informant and defeat the ends of justice.


5.           Perusal of the documents placed on record reveals that the

allegations in the present FIR are vague, general, and omnibus against the

applicants, failing to attribute any specific overt act, date, or distinct role to

the applicants. Furthermore, the criminal complaint was lodged shortly after

the initiation of the civil partition suit, clearly demonstrating that the

criminal prosecution is an afterthought arising out of property dispute.

Placing reliance upon the settled principles in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal

(supra), where criminal proceedings are manifestly attended with malafides

and instituted out of sheer malice and spite, allowing them to continue

would amount to a clear abuse of the process of law. Furthermore, it is

relevant to note that Applicants No. 3 and 4 reside separately and do not



                                    Page 4 of 5
                                                            cri.appln.1385.23.odt



share the same household. As per the settled position of law, relatives

residing separately cannot be forced to face trial based on vague and

sweeping allegations, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Geeta

Mehrotra v. State of U.P. (2012) 10 SCC 741 and Kahkashan Kausar v. State

of Bihar (2022) 6 SCC 599.


6.          In view of the above, application allowed in terms prayer

clauses B, B1, B2, and B-1-a.


7.          The fees of the appointed counsel are quantified at Rs. 10,000/-

which shall be paid by the High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee,

Aurangabad.


                                                   (R. M. JOSHI, J.)
Malani




                                 Page 5 of 5