SUNITA BABURAO KHADEKAR AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD

           CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1686 OF 2024

1.   Sunita Baburao khadekar
2.   Baburao S/o Rambahu Khadekar
3.   Dadasaheb S/o Baburao Khadekar
4.   Kasabai W/o Parmeshwar Korde
5.   Parmeshwar S/o Pundlik Korde
6.   Sonali W/o Ganesh Veer
7.   Ganesh S/o Trimbak Veer
8.   Rekha W/o Kanhu Veer
9.   Kanhu S/o Ambadas Veer……….…Applicants

           Versus

1.   The State of Maharashtra
2.   Bhagyshri W/o Ankush Khadekar ………. Respondents

Mr.U.S. Patil, Advocate for Applicants
Mr. G.O. Wattamwar, APP for the State
Mr. M.C. Kochar, Appointed Advocate for Respondent No.2

                                    CORAM      : R. M. JOSHI, J.
                                    DATE       : 31 July, 2026


PER COURT :-

1.   At the outset it needs to be recorded that proceedings against
applicant nos. 1 to 3 are dismissed as withdrawn.


2.   By the way of this application filed under section 482 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 the present applicants are seeking quashment
of impugned RCC No. 372/2023 pending before the Ld. Judicial Magistrate



                                                                   1 of 5
First Class, Bhokardan, Tal. Bhokardan, Dist. Jalna in respect of FIR No.
287/2023 register with Hasanabad Police Station, Tal. Bhokardan, Dist.
Aurangabad for offence punishable u/s. 498-A, 323, 504, 506, r/w 34 of
Indian Penal Code, so also prayed for quashing of Order dated
03/11/2023 passed by Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class as well as
Charges framed dated 21/03/2024 in the said proceedings therein.


3.    It's the case of the information/Respondent No.2-Wife that her
marriage with Ankush Baburao Khadekar-Husband was solemnized on
28/04/2022 at Hasanabad, District Jalna, whereafter she commenced
cohabitation in a joint family with her husband and petitioners/in-laws. It
is alleged that after one month of marriage, the husband and co-habiting
petitioners/in-laws subjected her to physical abuse, food deprivation, and
death threats over an unlawful demand of ₹3,00,000/- for purchasing a
four-wheeler car. Similar allegations of harassment and reiteration of the
demand     were      also   alleged    against     non-cohabiting   extended
applicants/in-laws   residing   separately   in    Karmad,   Golatgaon,     and
Apatgaon during their occasional visits to the matrimonial home.


4.    Distressed by the Persistent mental and physical abuse, the
Complainant left the matrimonial home on 19/11/2022 to reside with her
parents.   Following    unsuccessful     private    mediation   efforts,    she
approached the Women Complaint Redressal Center, Jalna, in July 2023.
However, failing in six rounds of counseling to resolve the dispute, the
Complainant lodged a written complaint at Police Station Hasanabad on
11/10/2023 upon receiving a letter from the Redressal Center, which led
to the registration of the present criminal proceedings. The investigation
is completed and a charge-sheet is filed. The Learned Trial Court framed


                                                                           2 of 5
Charges against the Applicants vide Exhibit-29.


5.     The learned council for the applicants summit that this is a case of
false implication, so also there is delay of almost 1 year in lodging the
first information report. For want of any allegations being attributable to
present applicants that they physically and mentally harassed the
complainant, the prosecution has to show that that is sufficient evidence
on record in order to indicate that complainant has suffered physical and
mental abuse at the whims of present applicants. He draws the attention
of the court to the FIR and charge sheet on record to contend that the
allegations against the applicant are vague and on bases of such
omnibus and vague allegations the applicant cannot be tried. He further
submits that it cannot be said that elements of the offence alleged
against the present applicants are fulfilled. Finally he submits that there
are no antecedents against the present applicants.


6.     The     learned    APP    and       The    learned   Counsel      for
information/Respondent No.2 strongly oppose grant of any relief to the
applicants.


7.     Prima facie perusal of record shows that the marriage between
Informant/Respondent No.2 and Husband-Ankush Khadekar solemnised
was on 28/04/2022. The informant/respondent No.2 left matrimonial
Home on 19/11/2022 and afterwards multiple sessions to conciliate
between Respondent No.2 along with her family and Applicants were
held   which   were   unsuccessful   due    to   temperamental   difference.
Therefore, on 10/10/2023, informant/Respondent No.2 registered a
complaint against the Applicants in Complaint Redressal Centre, Jalna.


                                                                       3 of 5
Thus, this indicates that there is a crack in relation between respondent
No. 2, her husband and petitioners-in-laws after solemnisation of
marriage of informant/Respondent No.2, and in any case for a period of 1
years prior to lodging of report, the informant/Respondent No.2 is
residing separately. There is a delay of almost 1 year in lodging of the FIR
as rightly argued by learned counsel for the Applicant.


8.      In   so   far   as   allegations   against   extended   Applicants-in-law
harassing the informant/Respondent No.2 is concerned, the record
indicates that they reside separately distant from matrimonial home and
there are no specific allegations against them for causing harassment to
the informant/Respondent No.2. So also, statements of witnesses
recorded are not sufficient to implicate the Applicants-in-law culpable for
acts alleged. The allegations made against the applicant-in-laws are
purely Omnibus as they lack specific overt acts and there is absence of
evidence of physical and mental cruelty being caused to the Respondent
No.2.


9.      At this stage, it would be relevant to refer to the judgement of the
Honorable Supreme Court in case of Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P.
[(2012) 10 SCC 741], Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar [(2022)
6 SCC 599], Preeti Gupta & Anr. v. State of Jharkhand [(2010) 7
SCC 667] which states that relatives which are residing separately
cannot be forced to face trial under Section 498A IPC based on vague
and sweeping allegations. Hence, the proceedings against Applicants are
bad in law and unsustainable and judgement of the Honorable Supreme
Court in case of Anand Kumar Mohatta vs State (NCT of Delhi),
2019 11 SCC 706, State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal, (1992 Supp (1)


                                                                            4 of 5
SCC 335), Sanjay Kumar Rai vs State of Uttar Pradesh, (2021)
SCC OnLine Sc 367 in which observations are made with regards to
quashment of first information Report and proceedings even after
Charges are framed, if the trial continued would amount to abuse of
courts process.


10.   Bare perusal of the investigation papers indicate that Applicants-in-
law are brought into sweep of this crime in order to cause harassment
and distress. Prima facie this Court is of the view that involvement of the
Applicants-in-laws is done     with malafide intentions. The aforesaid
accusations, even if taken at face value and accepted in their entirety, do
not constitute any offence.


11.   It is evident from the above discussion, that the applicants being
relatives of the husband have been roped in under Section 498A IPC
without specific allegations, purely to settle personal scores. Allowing
such proceedings to continue would be a gross abuse of the process of
the court. Consequently, the FIR and consequential proceedings against
the applicants are liable to be quashed and set aside.

12.   The petition therefore stands partly allowed to the extent of
Applicant nos. 4 to 10 in terms of prayer clause "A” , “A-a” and “A-b”

13.   Fees of the appointed counsel is quantified to Rs.10,000/-.



                                                (R. M. JOSHI, J.)
dyb




                                                                      5 of 5