NAHUSHRAJ ASHOK SONAWANE AND OTHESversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

2026:BHC-AUG:36966-DB
                                               -1-
                                                                   APPLN-1679-2025

                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                          CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1679 OF 2025

              1.   Nahushraj S/o Ashok Sonawane (Husband)
                   Age : 36 years, Occupation: Service,
                   R/o. Timber Garden Park,
                   C - 101, Off WEH, Diamond Industrial Area,
                   Dahisar (East), Mumbai – 400068.

              2.   Archishmati D/o Ashok Sonawane (Sister-in-law)
                   Age: 31 years, Occupation: Student,
                   R/o. Timber Garden Park,
                   C -101, Off WEH, Diamond Industrial Area,
                   Dahisar (East), Mumbai – 400068.

              3.   Manaswita W/o Ashok Sonawane (Mother-in-law)
                   Age : 61 years, Occupation: Retired,
                   R/o. Timber Garden Park,
                   C -101, Off WEH, Diamond Industrial Area,
                   Dahisar (East), Mumbai – 400068.          …. Applicants

                               Versus

              1.   The State of Maharashtra,
                   Through Bhagyanagar Police Station

              2.   Mamata W/o Nahushraj Sonawane (Wife)
                   Age : 31 years, Occupation: Household,
                   Samvidhan Bhavan, White Bunglow,
                   Jagdish Colony, Village Taroda Budruk,
                   Near Pavak Hanuman Temple,
                   Nanded - Waghala,
                   Maharashtra – 431604.                          … Respondents

                                               ..…
              Mr. G. L. Deshpande, Advocate for Applicants.
              Mr. D. J. Patil, APP for Respondent No.1 – State.
              Mr. G. J. Karne, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
                                               .....

                                          CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.
                                          DATED : 18th AUGUST 2026
                                 -2-
                                                          APPLN-1679-2025



JUDGMENT :

1.          Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent

of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the application is

heard finally.



2.          The application was originally instituted by three

applicants. Applicant No.1 is husband of respondent No.2.

Applicant No.2 is his sister and applicant No. 3 is his mother. This

Court by order dated 19.01.2026 had permitted applicant No.1 to

withdraw    the   application   on     his   behalf.   Accordingly,   the

application stood dismissed as against applicant No.1. The present

adjudication is therefore confined to applicant Nos. 2 and 3 only.

For convenience, they are referred to as “applicants” and

respondent No.2 is referred to as “complainant”.



3.          The applicants invoke inherent jurisdiction of this

Court to quash the First Information Report bearing No.476 of

2023 registered on 15th December 2023 with Bhagyanagar Police

Station, Nanded for offences punishable under Sections 498-A,

323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for

short, “IPC”).
                                 -3-
                                                      APPLN-1679-2025

4.         During the pendency of application, the investigation

culminated in charge-sheet bearing No. 126 of 2024, which came to

be filed before the jurisdictional Magistrate on 18th June, 2024. The

case was registered as Regular Criminal Case No. 861 of 2024

before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nanded and

process was issued below Exhibit-1 by order dated 22nd July, 2024.

As these amounted to subsequent developments, the applicants by

way of an amendment to the present application challenge the

charge-sheet, the order issuing process and entire consequential

proceedings pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate First

Class, Nanded.



5.         It is pertinent to note that there is no dispute in respect

of the preliminary facts. The complainant married applicant No.1

on 12th January 2020, according to the Buddhist rites. After

marriage, they resided at Mumbai. Applicant Nos.2 and 3 were also

residing at Dahisar, at the said address shown in the papers. The

matrimonial relationship subsequently deteriorated. According to

complainant, she had left the matrimonial home in the early hours

of 4th April, 2022 and thereafter resided with her parental family

at Nanded. Applicant No.1 instituted a petition for divorce before

the Family Court at Bandra on 25th July 2022. The said

matrimonial proceeding was thereafter transferred to Nanded by
                                 -4-
                                                      APPLN-1679-2025

order dated 10th February, 2025 passed in Miscellaneous Civil

Application No. 12 of 2024.


6.         The sum and substance of FIR is that the complainant

was treated well for a brief period after the marriage. Thereafter, it

is alleged that the complainant's husband and applicant Nos. 2 and

3, i.e. present applicants, allegedly complained about inadequate

dowry given by the parents of complainant at the time of marriage.

There is also an allegation pertaining to collectively demanding

money from the complainant's parents for purchase of a flat. At one

place in the FIR, the demanded amount is referred to as Rs.21

lakhs, whereas in the later part of complaint and the statement of

complainant refers to Rs.25 lakhs. It is alleged in general terms

that all three accused deprived the complainant of food, abused

her, beat her and subjected her to physical and mental

harassment. The allegations specifically concerning consumption

of alcohol, suspecting the complainant's character and being

subjected to assault are principally directed against the husband of

complainant.


7.         Perusal of the FIR and the charge-sheet states that the

first incident having any temporal particularity is alleged to have

occurred during the night intervening 3rd and 4th April, 2022. The

complainant states that she had gone out with her husband at
                                  -5-
                                                      APPLN-1679-2025

about 9.00 p.m. and that they returned at 1.00 a.m. in the

midnight. It is alleged that after returning home, the complainant

was subjected to abuse and physical assault by applicant Nos. 2

and 3. It is alleged that the ornaments of complainant were

removed and she was driven out of the matrimonial house at about

2.30 a.m. in the midnight. The complainant therefore contacted

her brother, who then took her along with him. The complainant

thereafter returned to her parental house at Nanded on the next

day and since then, has been living separately from the husband

and the applicants.



8.          The second incident is stated to have occurred in the

background of proceedings before the Women's Help Cell at

Nanded. The complainant approached that cell with her family. The

husband and the present applicants attended a counselling session

during the said proceedings. According to FIR, after the counselling

session was over, the husband along with present applicants came

to the complainant's parental house and abused and threatened

her and refused to take the complainant back unless their demand

of Rs.25 lakhs was met. The FIR alleges singular act against

applicant No. 2 in relation to that episode by stating that applicant

No.2 slapped and pushed the complainant. No specific physical act

of assault is attributed to applicant No. 3.
                                 -6-
                                                      APPLN-1679-2025




9.         On perusal of entire charge-sheet, it is important to

make a reference at this juncture that there is a material variation

about the date of this second episode. The FIR and the investigation

papers refer to 6th December, 2023, while the supplementary

statement mentions that the second incident took place on 29 th

November, 2023. This variation and discrepancy was also noted

by the Investigating Officer. Therefore, on 7 th June, 2024, the

Investigating Officer addressed the communication to the Chief

Judicial Magistrate, requesting that the complainant's statement

under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. be recorded. The said request letter

itself records that, due to the conflicting dates, there were severe

difficulties faced by the investigation. The letter also records that

the names of two extended relatives, i.e. Swati and Sharad, have

also appeared in the application to the Women Cell, but they are

not forming part of the FIR. Thus, the learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate, upon the request of Investigating Officer, recorded the

statement of complainant under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. on 10 th June

2024. The complainant reiterated the broad allegations pertaining

to the monetary demand of Rs.25 lakhs and in respect of physical

and mental harassment. In the said statement, she also introduced

two extended relatives and stated that all of them complained

about inadequate dowry from the complainant. In respect of the
                                -7-
                                                    APPLN-1679-2025

incident that took place on 4th April 2022, she repeated that the

present applicants abused and beat her after she returned home

with her husband. In relation to the episode that took place post

the Women Cell proceedings of counselling, she stated that the

event took place on 29th November 2023 and alleged that applicant

No.2 had slapped and pushed her, while all the other accused

persons abused her and repeatedly demanded the monies.



10.        After the investigation was completed, the charge-sheet

came to be filed. It is pertinent to note that the charge-sheet was

filed immediately on 8th day after the statement under Section 164

of Cr.P.C. was recorded.



11.        Perusal of the charge-sheet demonstrates that, apart

from the complainant's version, the investigating agency recorded

statements of her mother and close relatives including her younger

brother and uncles. The statements repeat what was narrated to

them about the matrimonial life of the complainant. The brother is

referred to as having taken her away from Mumbai after the

incident of April 2022. The material does not disclose that any of

these witnesses personally witnessed the alleged course of conduct

inside the matrimonial house. Thus, each of the witnesses are

hearsay witnesses. Furthermore, there is no medical certificate
                                 -8-
                                                     APPLN-1679-2025

concerning either alleged assault forming part of the charge-sheet.

No independent witnesses from the neighborhood, either from

Mumbai or from the parental locality at Nanded are cited in

support of the alleged assault or threats or demand. There is also

no recovery from the present applicants and no independent

documentary material connecting them with an unlawful demand.

The charge-sheet retains in its final report offences under Sections

498-A, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. It further

adds Section 109 of IPC. Upon perusal of the entire final report, it

does not identify any act of instigation, conspiracy or intentional

aid by either applicant, which is distinct from the very acts for

which they are alleged to be principal offenders. The order dated

22nd July 2024 issuing process by referring to the police report,

does not separately indicate any material by which the ingredients

of each offence, more particularly the offence under Section 109 of

IPC, are disclosed against each applicant.



12.        The learned Advocate for the applicants argued that the

husband is no longer before the Court, and therefore, the present

application is a case of two female relatives, which requires

independent assessment on its own material. He submits that the

contents of the FIR employ a collective expression against all the

family members without specifying which applicant made the
                                 -9-
                                                      APPLN-1679-2025

demand and on what date, in whose presence, in what words and

what conduct followed the alleged refusal. The general allegation

covering the period from the marriage until separation, according

to the learned Advocate, cannot satisfy the requirements of the

explanation to Section 498-A of IPC.



13.         The learned Advocate further submits that only two

incidents later supplied with dates are unreliable on the face of the

prosecution papers. The episode of April 2022 was reported after

more than 20 months without any supporting complaint or medical

record. The second incident is assigned irreconcilable dates in the

FIR   and   the   subsequent   statements.   He   relies   upon   the

Investigating Officer's own application to submit that this is not a

minor discrepancy discovered in cross-examination, but a defect

which the prosecution itself found necessary to cure by procuring a

statement of complainant under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. He also

made reference to the electronic payment records relied upon by

applicant No.2 for establishing her presence at Chhatrapati

Sambhajinagar at about 9.00 p.m. on the relevant evening. It is

urged that this objective circumstance materially reinforces the

inherent improbability of the complainant's collective version. The

learned Advocate thereafter referred to and relied upon the prior

divorce petition filed on the ground of separation since April 2022.
                                -10-
                                                     APPLN-1679-2025

He argued that the husband had instituted divorce proceedings in

July 2022 and the criminal case was filed in December 2023.

According to him, the chronology, successive improvements and

the indiscriminate addition of family members clearly demonstrate

that the criminal proceedings are being used as leverage in already

pending matrimonial contest.



14.        The learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the

application and argued that, at the stage of considering an

application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., this Court is not required

to conduct a mini-trial and has to exercise restraint while

exercising inherent jurisdiction. He argued that the complainant

has alleged continuing unlawful demands, physical and mental

harassment, dispossession of her gold ornaments and expulsion

from the matrimonial home after consistent demand of dowry at

Nanded. The complainant has recorded her statement under

Section 164 of Cr.P.C. and statement is sufficiently corroborated by

the complainant's relatives. He submitted that the delay, according

to prosecution, is attributable to the complainant's efforts to

preserve the marriage and to the counselling before the Women's

Help Cell. It is submitted that, the inconsistency concerning the

date of Nanded incident is a matter for cross-examination and not

a ground to terminate the prosecution.
                                -11-
                                                     APPLN-1679-2025




15.        The learned Advocate appearing for complainant while

adopting the submissions made by the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor, submits that applicants resided in the matrimonial

home and are not distant relatives who have been casually named

in the complaint. The complainant has specifically attributed the

role of physical assault by applicant No. 2 and has further made

specific allegations against both the applicants for assaulting her

and removing her ornaments even in the first incident of April

2022. He argued that the divorce petition contains the husband's

unilateral allegations, and they cannot be treated as established

facts. The truth of the allegations and accusations, and the

evidentiary worth of the related witnesses, are the issues that

require to be considered and determined at the time of trial.



16.        I have considered the rival submissions and have also

gone through the amended application, copy of FIR and the entire

charge-sheet,   matrimonial     petition,   Investigating   Officer's

application dated 7th June 2024, and also the order issuing process

of the Trial Court.    Since applicant No.1 has withdrawn the

application, I do not have to decide or express any opinion on the

sustainability of the prosecution against him. The only question is

whether compelling applicant Nos.2 and 3 to stand trial on the
                                 -12-
                                                       APPLN-1679-2025

material collected by the investigating agency would serve a

legitimate prosecutorial purpose or would amount to abuse of

process.



17.         Before I proceed to decide the application on merits, it

is necessary to address the issue pertaining to the parameters of

the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.. It is a settled

principle of law that, under the inherent jurisdiction, the High

Court does not trace the probability of conviction, weigh the

evidence as it is done at the time of trial, or choose between the

competing versions. Equally, the filing of a charge-sheet does not

compel the High Court to act as a silent spectator when the

completed investigation, even though accepted at its highest, fails

to disclose the legal ingredients of the alleged offences against a

particular accused. This principle has been well-recognized in the

case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 Supp (1)

SCC 335, wherein, among the other categories, cases in which the

allegations, even if taken at face value, do not constitute an offence

and the cases in which the allegations are so absurd and inherently

improbable that no prudent person could proceed with the

proceedings and also those proceedings which are manifestly

attended with mala fides or instituted with vengeance, need to be

interfered with by the Courts of law. Though I am cautious that the
                                 -13-
                                                     APPLN-1679-2025

categories mentioned in Bhajan Lal's case (supra) are illustrative,

but the controlling consideration remains prevention of abuse and

securing the ends of justice.



18.        The offence under Section 498-A of IPC punishes the

husband or his relative who subjects a woman to cruelty. The

statutory explanation gives the expression a defined content.

Under clause (a), the conduct must be wilful and of such a nature

as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave

injury or danger to life, limb or physical or mental health. Under

clause (b), the harassment must be with a view to coerce the

woman or a person related to her to meet an unlawful demand for

property or valuable security or is on account of failure to meet

that   demand.   Thus,   every   matrimonial   discord,   insult   or

unpleasant domestic exchange, without there being any statutory

nexus and degree, cannot constitute the offence under Section

498-A of IPC.



19.        It is also important to note that the Hon'ble Apex Court

has repeatedly cautioned against the prosecution of relatives of the

husband on omnibus assertions. It is laid down by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India that, in absence of specific allegations

indicating the active involvement of a relative, continuation of
                                 -14-
                                                    APPLN-1679-2025

prosecution on general allegations would amount to abuse of

process. No doubt, the principle does not create immunity for a

relative who has actually participated in cruelty to the wife.

Therefore, the Courts are required to distinguish an accusation

describing the conduct of an individual from general accusations

made against the family as a group. In the case of Mahalakshmi

and Ors. v. The State of Karnataka and Ors. , reported in 2023 (16)

SCALE 104, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has not only

examined the complaint but also the charge-sheet and after

conducting thorough examination, quashed the proceedings

against relatives where the assertions remained vague and general

and the investigation did not yield material demonstrating their

interference in the matrimonial life.



20.        Applying these principles to the present case, the

narrative of a demand of money is not specific or individualistic,

but persistently collective. The entire FIR does not state which of

the two applicants made the demand. It does not disclose any date

or occasion on which the demand was raised, neither in whose

presence. It does not disclose any distinct conduct attributable to

the present applicants. On the contrary, the quantum of the

amount itself keeps on changing in the investigation papers from

Rs.21 lakhs to Rs.25 lakhs. A general common sentence that the
                                -15-
                                                      APPLN-1679-2025

husband, his mother and his sister demanded money and harassed

the complainant is repeated without supplying any of the above-

referred missing particulars of individual participation.



21.        The allegations of complainant of continuing course of

harassment from the early months of marriage until separation in

April 2022 are equally undifferentiated. Expressions such as, "they

beat me", "they kept me without food", and "they threatened to kill

me" are serious in ordinary speech. But while fastening criminal

liability, they are personal. Neither the FIR nor the final report

separates the conduct of applicant No.2 from that of applicant No.

3. There are no particulars of the date or frequency of such

conduct, neither the description of any resulting injury is provided.

Even after completion of investigation, these collective allegations

do not get transformed into individualized material.        The April

2022 episode is the first attempt to supply a particular occasion.

Even there, the investigation papers state in one breath that

applicant Nos.2 and 3 abused and beat the complainant and

snatched her ornaments, but does not give any description of the

individual part played by either of the applicants or the manner in

which the assault was caused or whether any injury was suffered

by the complainant. The allegation of the ornaments being taken by

each of the applicants is neither proceeded further to demonstrate
                                 -16-
                                                      APPLN-1679-2025

as   to   what   happened   to   those   ornaments.   Although   the

complainant's brother is stated to have taken her away shortly

thereafter to his house and then, on the next day, to the parental

house at Nanded, the record does not indicate that there was any

complaint made at Mumbai or at Nanded. There is also no medical

record of any kind of medical treatment provided to complainant.

This incident of April 2022 was first incorporated into a criminal

accusation only in the present FIR after 20 months of delay. It is

true that delay by itself is not a rule of rejection in matrimonial

offences. The submission of the learned APP has some substance

that a woman may endure conduct for long with the hope of

reconciliation and approach the law only after those efforts fail. I,

therefore, do not treat the lapse of time as independently fatal. Its

relevance in the present case is contextual.      The parties have

admittedly separated in April 2022 and the divorce proceedings

were instituted in July 2022. Yet, there was no complaint, medical

material or neutral account of the alleged forcible expulsion ever

produced before initiating the present FIR in December 2023.

When this chronology is taken into consideration along with the

wholly collective form of the accusation, the delay becomes

legitimately significant in assessing whether the prosecution has a

prima facie foundation against the present applicants. The episode

that took place in Nanded in the year 2023 also does not cure the
                                -17-
                                                      APPLN-1679-2025

deficiency. In fact, the date of this incident is also not properly

provided by the complainant. The formal FIR places it on 6 th

December 2023, while the supplementary statement of the

complainant mentions it on 29th November 2023. Due to this

discrepancy, the Investigating Officer had to take steps by

approaching the Chief Judicial Magistrate for recording the

statement of the complainant under Section 164, as the conflicting

dates caused obstruction to the investigation. In the statement

under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., the complainant adopted the date of

the incident as 29th November 2023. While adopting the said date,

the complainant also expanded the array of alleged participants by

referring to two extended relatives who were not named in the FIR.

The statement under Section 164 is an important investigative

safeguard. But definitely, it is not a piece of substantive evidence,

and therefore, it cannot erase the absence of essential particulars

or convert a changing collective narrative into independent

corroboration. At the stage of quashing, this Court is entitled to

notice that the prosecution itself found uncertainty about the very

date of the only later incident and that the completed investigation

produced no independent circumstance resolving it.



22.        This Court is also conscious of the allegations made

against applicant No.2 in respect of slapping and pushing the
                                 -18-
                                                      APPLN-1679-2025

complainant during the Nanded episode. If that accusation stood in

a stable narrative, which was supported by the investigation, it

would not be permissible to discard it merely because the

applicant-accused denies it. However, perusing the entire record,

the act appears only as a short, later particular within a collective

account whose date has been changed, whose participant list

expands, and whose alleged occurrence at the complainant's

parental house yields no independent witness or medical material.

The electronic payment relied upon by applicant No.2 is not a piece

of evidence, which can be accepted by this Court as conclusive

proof of an alibi, as the same would require appreciation of

evidence. Even without deciding that defence, the prosecution

material itself does not provide a stable factual foundation for the

isolated allegation.



23.         As regards applicant No. 3, the accusations are still less

specific. Apart from being included in the common demand and

common assault, it is alleged to have stated that she had worked in

Mantralaya, had criminal connections and could make the

complainant disappear. It is to be noted that no date, place, exact

context or person to whom this was communicated is stated in the

FIR or in the statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. The entire

investigation material does not show that the complainant was
                                 -19-
                                                      APPLN-1679-2025

thereby placed in alarm or compelled to do or omit an act. The

assertion of the complainant is not sufficient by itself to disclose

the ingredients of the offence of criminal intimidation.



24.        The offence under Section 323 of IPC requires material

showing voluntary causation of hurt. Section 504 requires an

intentional insult coupled with the intention or knowledge that the

provocation will cause a breach of peace or commission of another

offence. Section 506 requires a threat within Section 503 which is

made with intent to cause alarm or to compel the person

threatened to act or abstain from acting. Perusal of the FIR and

charge-sheet does not set out the words constituting insult, the

intended provocation, the injury constituting hurt, or the manner

in which a particular threat caused alarm. The mechanical use of

the words ‘abused’, ‘beat’ and ‘threatened’ against all accused

together does not substitute for the ingredients of these offences

against each of the present applicants.



25.        Even the offence under Section 34 of IPC does not

create a substantive offence and cannot fill a void in the allegation

of the principal act. The charge-sheet also adds an offence under

Section 109 of IPC, but it does not state whether either applicant

instigated another, engaged in a conspiracy pursuant to which an
                                -20-
                                                     APPLN-1679-2025

act occurred, or intentionally aided the commission of a stated

offence. The same persons are described simultaneously as

principal actors and abettors without identifying the act abetted. A

bare addition of Section 109 of IPC at the conclusion of

investigation, unsupported by the factual elements of abetment

under Section 107, cannot sustain the process.



26.        The witnesses cited by the prosecution are not to be

disbelieved merely because they are related to the complainant.

Relationship is not a disqualification. The relevant point is

different. Perusal of their statements do not disclose that they

personally witnessed the alleged continuing cruelty within the

matrimonial home, and they substantially reproduce what the

complainant narrated to them. Such statements may explain

complainant’s subsequent conduct, but they do not supply the

omitted dates, acts and individual roles necessary to prosecute

applicant Nos. 2 and 3.



27.        This Court also does not accept the applicants’

invitation to treat the averments in the husband’s divorce petition

as established facts against the complainant. Those allegations

remain to be adjudicated in the matrimonial proceeding. The

divorce petition is relevant only for the purpose of the undisputed
                                 -21-
                                                      APPLN-1679-2025

chronology as the date on which the spouses had separated, a

matrimonial proceeding had been instituted about seventeen

months before the FIR, and that the criminal case followed after

the dispute had become entrenched. No doubt, chronology alone

would not justify quashing a genuine accusation, but it is a relevant

surrounding circumstance that requires to be appreciated and

taken into consideration when the accusation against relatives

remains vague and undergoes material improvement.



28.        Lastly, the submission of the learned Advocate for the

applicants is that the order issuing process of the Trial Court is

brief. It is a settled principle of law that Magistrate dealing with a

police report is not required to write a judgment at the stage of

taking cognizance. This Court, therefore, does not quash the

proceeding merely because the order dated 22nd July 2024, by

which the Trial Court has issued process against the accused

persons does not contain elaborate reasons. However, the more

fundamental defect is that the underlying Investigation Final

Report, even when read as a whole and accepted at its highest, do

not disclose with the necessary factual content the commission of

the alleged offences by applicant Nos. 2 and 3. The order issuing

process cannot preserve a prosecution whose factual foundation

against these applicants is legally deficient. For these reasons, the
                                -22-
                                                       APPLN-1679-2025

impugned order issuing process needs to be interfered with and set

aside.



29.        The   aforesaid    conclusions   do   not     amount    to

adjudicating whether the complainant suffered matrimonial wrong

at the hands of her husband. It does not decide the merits of the

divorce proceeding and does not express any view on applicant

No.1, whose application was withdrawn. Nor does it dilute the

protection which Section 498-A was enacted to afford. The

provision must be applied firmly where its ingredients are

disclosed; its legitimacy is equally protected when criminal process

is not permitted to continue against relatives on a generalized and

unstable accusation.



30.        On a cumulative consideration of the entire material,

the case against applicant Nos. 2 and 3 does not disclose a specific

or individually attributable accusation warranting a trial. The

allegations against them remain broadly and collectively framed at

every stage. The FIR attributes the demand for money and acts of

harassment to all accused without identifying the role of each

applicant, the manner of participation, or the circumstances in

which any such demand was allegedly made. The incident dated 4 th

April, 2022 is also described in general terms, with both applicants
                                 -23-
                                                         APPLN-1679-2025

being implicated in abuse, assault and removal of ornaments, but

without any clarity as to the individual acts attributed to each of

them, the nature of the alleged assault, the injuries, or the specific

articles allegedly taken. This incident, reported after a delay of

more    than   twenty     months,       is   not   supported   by   any

contemporaneous complaint, medical evidence or independent

corroboration. The subsequent allegation relating to Nanded also

fails to strengthen the prosecution case. The date of occurrence

itself is inconsistent in the record, being stated as 6 th December

2023 in the FIR and 29th November 2023 in the later version, a

discrepancy which was considered significant enough by the

Investigating Officer to be reported to the Chief Judicial

Magistrate. The statement under Section 164, while adopting one

of these dates, does not resolve the inconsistency and instead

introduces additional relatives not named in the FIR, thereby

expanding rather than clarifying the narrative. Even after

completion of investigation, the record does not contain any

independent    witness,    contemporaneous         document,   medical

material, recovery or other objective evidence to establish a

distinct and legally sustainable role of either applicant. The

statements of relatives merely reiterate the complainant’s version

without adding material particulars of individual involvement. The

deficiencies, therefore, are not limited to the FIR but continue
                                 -24-
                                                       APPLN-1679-2025

through the entire investigative process up to the charge-sheet. In

this background, and having regard to the admitted matrimonial

discord,   separation   in   April   2022,   institution   of   divorce

proceedings in July 2022, and the criminal complaint lodged in

December 2023, the allegations against the mother-in-law and

sister-in-law appear to have been introduced in a generalized

manner within an already strained matrimonial context. In these

circumstances, continuation of proceedings against applicant Nos.

2 and 3 would not serve the purpose of testing a specific accusation

at trial, but would amount to subjecting them to prosecution in

absence of a clear, individualized and legally sustainable case.



31.         The prosecution against applicant Nos. 2 and 3 thus

falls within the first, fifth and seventh illustrative categories in

Bhajan Lal’s case (supra), the allegations read with the final report

do not disclose the statutory ingredients against them individually;

the cumulative narrative is rendered inherently improbable in its

application to them; and continuation of the prosecution, in the

circumstances revealed by the record, would operate as an

instrument of pressure in a matrimonial dispute. Requiring them

to face a criminal trial would not test a properly constituted

accusation, but it would itself perpetuate the abuse which the

inherent jurisdiction is required to prevent.
                                -25-
                                                      APPLN-1679-2025




32.        The application must, therefore, succeed to the extent

of applicant Nos.2 and 3.      All observations made herein are

confined to examining the existence of a prima facie case against

applicant Nos. 2 and 3 on the investigation material collected.



33.        In the result, the following order is passed.


                              ORDER

(I)        The Criminal Application stands allowed.


(II)       The First Information Report No.476 of 2023 registered
with Bhagyanagar Police Station, Nanded, for offences punishable
under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 and
subsequently added offence in charge-sheet under Section 109 of
the Indian Penal Code are quashed and set aside against applicant
nos.2 and 3.


(III)      Charge-sheet No.126 of 2024 dated 18 th June 2024 and
consequential proceedings of Regular Criminal Case No.861 of
2024 pending before the Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Nanded along with the order issuing process dated 22 nd July 2024,
and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed
and set aside only in so far as applicant nos.2 and 3 are concerned.
                                -26-
                                                     APPLN-1679-2025


(IV)        The interim applications and interim reliefs, if any,
stands disposed of. Prayer clause seeking action against the
Investigating Officer is not granted, there being no material
warranting such a direction in the present proceeding.


(v)         Rule is made absolute in the above terms. There shall be
no order as to costs.



                                       (HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR)
                                              JUDGE




Tandale