Bombay High Court

WALMIK ANNA PATHARE AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The court held that the allegations against the parents and sister are vague and omnibus, failing to disclose an offence, and therefore quashed the FIR and the pending criminal case.

Summary

The applicants, who are the parents and sister of the husband, sought to quash an FIR registered under IPC sections 323, 498A, 504, 506 r/w 34 alleging physical and mental cruelty, assault and intimidation against the wife. The FIR and charge‑sheet contained only vague, collective allegations against the relatives without specific dates, places or acts attributable to each. The court observed that such omnibus material does not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences, especially under section 498A, and that continuing the prosecution would amount to an abuse of process. While the application of the husband was withdrawn, the court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to quash the FIR and the consequent criminal case against the parents and sister. Consequently, the proceedings against applicants 2‑4 were dismissed and the FIR set aside.

Issues considered

Whether the FIR and charge‑sheet disclose specific allegations sufficient to constitute offences under IPC sections 323, 498A, 504, 506 r/w 34 against the husband’s parents and sister.
Whether the High Court can quash criminal proceedings on the ground of vague and omnibus allegations under its inherent jurisdiction.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 323, 34, 498A, 504, 506

Subjects

quash
FIR
inherent jurisdiction
omnibus allegations
IPC 498A
domestic violence
criminal procedure

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:41170-DB
Q979appln1546

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

979 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1546 OF 2025

1. Walmik s/o Anna Pathare
Age 27 years Occ. Private service
R/o: Guru Datta Housing Society
More Vasti Chikhli Road Pune,
Chinchvad Pune Maharashtra
Mob. No. 93733923014

2. Mangla w/o Anna Pathare ... Applicants
Age: 47 years Occ. House-wife,
R/o as Above

3. Anna s/o Murlidhar Pathare
Age :55, Occ. Private service R/o as Above

4. Pooja w/o Sagar Bhalerao
Age: 24 years Occ. House-wife, R/o
C/o Sagar Bhalerao Mahalunge, Pune
Maharashtra

VERSUS

1. The State of Maharashtra
through its In-charge Police Station Officer
Vedant Nagar, Police Station Aurangabad
District Aurangabad

2. Vaishali w/o Walmik Pathare ... Respondents
Age :23 years, Occ. House hold, R/o
Backside of District Court Kranti Nagar,
Vedant Nagar, Aurangabad, Maharashtra

Ms. Chate Sharada Pundlik, Advocate for the Applicants
Mr. K. K. Naik, APP for the Respondent-State
Ms.Deepali S. Patil-Yenegure, Advocate for Respondent No.2(appointed)

CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.
Dated : 2nd September, 2026

1 of 8
Q979appln1546

PER COURT :-

1. Heard the learned Advocate for the applicant. At the outset,

when this court shown disinclination to consider the present

application for quashing in respect of applicant no.1, the learned

Advocate for the Applicants, upon instructions, seeks permission to

withdraw the application on behalf of applicant no.1. Permission

granted.

2. The present application on behalf of Applicant Nos. 2, 3 and

4 is for quashing of the First Information Report bearing Crime No 39

of 2025 dated 05.03.2025 registered with Vednant Nagar Police

Station, District Aurangabad for the offences punishable under

Sections 323, 498(A), 504, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The

investigation is complete and the charge-sheet has already been filed.

The trial court has taken cognizance on 06.06.2025. Thus, by seeking

leave to amend, the present applicants had also challenged the

consequential proceedings which has led to filing of Regular Criminal

Case No. 1173 of 2025, pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate, First

Class, Aurangabad.

3. The case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is that the applicants

are the in-laws of the informant. The marriage of the applicant no.1

and respondent no.2 was solemnized on 30.10.2021. It is alleged that

after the marriage, respondent no.2 had gone to reside at Pune with

applicant No.1. According to her, initially, she was treated properly but

2 of 8
Q979appln1546

thereafter, matrimonial dispute arose. The allegations against applicant

Nos 2 and 4 are essentially that they used to instigate applicant no.1,

abuse respondent no.2 and complain that her father had not fulfilled

their expectation at the time of marriage. There is also an allegation

concerning the demand of Rs.2 lakhs for construction of house at Pune.

Respondent no. 2 ultimately started residing with her parents from

about February, 2022. She had also instituted proceeding under the

Protection of Women from Domestic Violation Act. The present FIR,

however, came to be registered on 05.03.2025.

4. At the outset, the learned Advocate appearing for the

applicants submits that applicant nos.2 and 3 are the parents of

applicant no.1 where as applicant no.4 is his married sister. The record

indicates that applicant no.4 is residing at her matrimonial home with

her husband and the family. She relies upon the documents annexed in

the charge-sheet showing the address of applicant no.4 as village

Malunge, Pune, which, according to her, is at the distance of 15 kms.

from the place where the informant used to reside. She also submits

that applicant no.4 has two school going children and therefore, there

is no possibility that every day she can travel to the house of her

parents and commit the alleged offense. She also submits that

applicant nos.2 and 3 are residing at their native place and they were

never residing with applicant no.1 and respondent no.2. However, she

candidly admits that there is nothing on record to show that they were

residing separately. In respect of applicant no.4, she also submitted

3 of 8
Q979appln1546

that applicant no.4 was married prior to the marriage of applicant

no.1 and respondent no.2 and this fact also needs to be taken into

consideration.

5. The learned APP as well as the learned Advocate appearing for

Respondent No.2 vehemently opposed the application. Both the

learned Advocates submitted that there are specific allegations levelled

against all the applicants and the ingredients that are essential to

constitute the offences under section 498-A are clearly made out from

the nature of allegations that has been versed in the complaint. This is

not a case, where, at this stage, it can be inferred that applicant nos. 2

and 3 were not residing along-with applicant no.1 and respondent no.2

at the relevant time. If at all it has to be considered, then it has to be

considered as a defence of applicant nos. 2 and 3, which necessary will

have to proved at the time of trial. They also argued that allegations of

instigation is against applicant no.4. Thus, cumulatively they argue that

there are specific allegations and specific role attributed to each of the

applicants. In these circumstances, they pray that the application be

dismissed and the applicants be directed to face the trial.

6. I have gone through the contents of the FIR as well as the

material collected by the investigating agency during the investigation.

Insofar as the applicant nos. 2 to 4 are concerned, what emerges is that

the allegations are substantially general and omnibus in character. No

distinct incidents, with necessary particulars as to the date, place and

individual overt act of each of these applicants have been attributed to

4 of 8
Q979appln1546

them so as to prima facie demonstrate the nature of the cruelty

allegedly perpetrated by each of them. The tendency in the allegations

is to refer the relatives of the husband collectively rather than to

disclose their separate and specific participation.

7. This assumes significance particularly in the case of applicant

no.4. It is an admitted position that applicant no.4 is a married sister

of applicant no.1 and is shown to be residing at her matrimonial home.

The material does not indicate or disclose any specific incident,

demonstrating her participation in the alleged demand or physical or

mental cruelty. Mere allegation that the relatives used to instigate the

husband or abuse the informant without particulars of the conduct

constituting the offence would not by itself justify separately residing

married sister to a criminal trial.

8. Even as regards applicant nos.2 and 3, the material has to be

assessed independently of the allegations against applicant no.1 The

fact that applicant no.1 is the husband cannot result in a automatic

inference of criminal liability against every member of his family.

Though the FIR refers to a demand of Rs. 2 lakhs, the allegations

against the relatives, read as a whole, remain largely collective in

nature and are not supported by particulars indicating their individual

role in subjecting respondent no.2 to cruelty of the nature as

contemplated in under the provisions of Section 498-A of the IPC.

9. The charge-sheet does not materially improve the prosecution

5 of 8
Q979appln1546

case against applicant nos. 2 to 4. The statements relied upon are

principally those of respondent no.2 and her family members. There is

no independent material or statement of any independent witness

brought on record which supplies the necessary specificity to the

otherwise general allegations against these applicants. This

circumstance, by itself, may not be sufficient to warrant quashing of the

prosecution. However, when considered in conjunction with the nature

of the allegations, the separate residence of applicant No. 4, the

absence of any clearly identifiable individual act, and the substantial

lapse of time between the matrimonial separation and the registration

of the FIR, this circumstance assumes relevance.

10. It is well settled that while exercising jurisdiction of criminal

proceedings, the court is not expected to undertake meticulous

appreciation of evidence or conduct a mini trial. Equally, the inherent

jurisdiction is required to be exercised where the allegations, even if

accepted, at their face value, do not disclose an essential ingredients of

the offences against the persons sought to be prosecuted, or where

continuation of such proceedings would amount to abuse of process of

the court. In matrimonial disputes, the Hon’ble Apex court has

repeatedly cautioned against permitting prosecution of relatives of the

husband on the basis of vague and omnibus allegations without

discernible role being attributed to them. The principles are clearly

stated in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal and others

reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 and also in the case of Kahkashan Kausar

6 of 8
Q979appln1546

vs. State of Bihar (2022) 6 SCC 599 which are clearly attracted in the

present case.

11. The case against applicant no.1 who is husband stands on a

different footing as compared to the case alleged against applicant nos.

2 to 3. I have deliberately expressed no opinion on the merits of the

allegation against applicant no.1, since the application is withdrawn

qua the applicant no.1. The subsequent matrimonial status of

respondent no.2, which was referred to during the hearing, pertaining

to she being remarried, is also unnecessary for deciding whether the

material constituting the charge-sheet discloses alleged offences against

applicant nos. 2 to 4. The present order, therefore, rests on the

allegations and material exclusively concerning the applicant nos. 2 to

4 themselves.

12. Thus, in my considered view, permitting criminal prosecution

to continue against applicant nos. 2 to 4 on such omnibus material

would amount to compelling them to face the criminal trial

notwithstanding the sufficiently specific allegations constituting the

offences alleged against them. This is, therefore, a fit case for

exercising the inherent jurisdiction to that limited extent. Hence, the

following order:

ORDER

(a) Criminal Application stands dismissed as withdrawn insofar as

applicant No.1 Walmik Anna Pathare is concerned.

7 of 8
Q979appln1546

(b) Criminal application stands allowed insofar as applicant nos. 2 to

4 are concerned.

05.03.2025 registered with Vednant Nagar Police Station, District

Aurangabad for the offences punishable under Sections 323,

498(A), 504, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and

consequential proceeding bearing Regular Criminal Case No.

1173 of 2025 pending on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate,

First Class, Aurangabad along-with the order taking cognizance

dated 06.06.2025 passed in the above referred criminal case are

hereby quashed and set aside.

(d) No order as to costs.

(Rupees Seven Thousand Five Hundred only) to be paid by the

Legal Services Sub Committee, High Court, Aurangabad

(HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.)

JPChavan

8 of 8

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…