RUCHITA W/O AMITKUMAR MORANKAR AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

2026:BHC-AUG:38162-DB




                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                              BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                        CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1958 OF 2024

           1. Ruchita w/o Amitkumar Morankar
           2. Amitkumar Rangnath Morankar
           3. Vrushali Yogesh Pingale
           4. Yogesh s/o Prakash Pingale
           5. Kajal s/o Prasad Kotkar
           6. Prasad s/o Balkrishna Kotkar
                                                           ...Applicants

                 VERSUS

           1. The State of Maharashtra
           2. Lalit Rajendra Kele                          ...Respondents

                                              ...
           Mr. S. P. Tiwari, Advocate for Applicants
           Mr. A. R. Kale, APP for Respondent – State
           Mr. Dhanajay Shinde, Advocate for Respondent No. 2 (Appointed)
                                              ...

                                               CORAM   : R. M. JOSHI, J.
                                               DATE    : 19.08.2026

           PER COURT :-


           1.    This Application filed under Section 482 of the Code of

           Criminal Procedure, 1973, the present Applicants seek quashment

           of First Information Report in Crime No. 0133/2024, dated

           21.04.2024 registered with Parola Police Station, Taluka Parola,

           District Jalgaon for offences punishable under Sections 304B, 306,

           498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”)

           as against the Applicants.


           APPLN-1958-2024 498A quashing.odt                                1 of 6
2.    The case of the prosecution is that the Respondent No.2 being

Informant has lodged the FIR thereby alleging that the present

Applicants have caused the death of his sister. His sister named

Roshani married Kundan Arun Amrutkar on 10.03.2019 at Parola as

per rites and rituals. After marriage, she went to Parola at her

husband’s place for cohabitation. He further states that his sister

was blessed with two children out of the said wedlock. Since last

one year, her Husband and her parents-in-law along with Applicants

in the present case, have demanded the amount of Rs.15 Lakhs as

a dowry for purchasing truck for doing the business and on that

count the husband and his parents along with the present

Applicants have tortured her physically and mentally. Coupled with

these and other allegations, the present FIR came to be lodged.


3.    The Learned Counsel for the Applicants states that, the

Applicant No.2 is working in the Xoriant Solutions Pvt. Ltd, as a

"Senior Test Engineer" since 17.12.2014 and is residing in Pune

along with his family. The copy of appointment letter dated

28.04.2015 is placed on record. The Applicant No.5 is working in

Precise Chemipharma Pvt. Ltd. as a "Packing Officer" since

01.12.2017 and is residing in Nashik along with his family. The copy

of appointment letter dated 01.12.2017 is placed on record.

Therefore, the present Applicants are residing separately from the


APPLN-1958-2024 498A quashing.odt                                 2 of 6
matrimonial house of the deceased sister of the Informant.


4.    Further, the Learned Counsel for the Applicants contended

that the entire family has been falsely implicated by the

Respondent No.2/Informant in the present FIR, particularly no such

offence as alleged by the Informant had taken place. There is no

allegation against the present Applicants about any ill-treatment

and except for general allegations that have been made against the

Applicants. There are no specific allegations attributable to the

present Applicants to constitute offence under Section 498A of IPC

eventually leading to offence under Sections 304B and 306 of IPC.

He further submits that as such there is no prima facie evidence to

show that the Applicants had mens rea to show that they

instigated, intentionally aided or abetted the suicide of the

deceased sister of the Informant. Therefore, he submits that the

offence under Section 306 of IPC is not made out.


5.    Learned APP and Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2

submits that the application for quashing deserves to be dismissed,

as the FIR clearly shows prima facie case of cruelty and dowry

demands under Section 498A of IPC being made out. Moreover, it

has led to the suicide of the sister of the Informant/Respondent No.

2 amounting to dowry death under Section 304B of IPC as she was



APPLN-1958-2024 498A quashing.odt                              3 of 6
subjected to cruelty soon before her death as well as it amounts to

abetment of suicide under Section 306 of IPC.               It is further

submitted that the FIR does not contain mere general statements,

but explicitly details specific acts of harassment, physical assault. It

is further argued that claim of the Applicants living separately does

not absolve them from the offence, as they actively acted together

causing cruelty and eventually leading to suicide of the sister of the

Informant.


6.     Bare perusal of the record shows that all of the Applicants are

residing separately distant from the matrimonial home and there

are no specific allegations against them of causing harassment to

the sister of the Informant/Respondent No. 2. It is well-settled that a

criminal prosecution under Section 498A of IPC cannot be sustained

against family members on the basis of general and uncorroborated

assertions without concrete details regarding time, place, and

individual participation. Furthermore, the materials on record

demonstrate that the Applicants reside separately at a distance

from    the   matrimonial     house.   In   the   absence   of   evidence

demonstrating active involvement in day-to-day domestic affairs,

implicating relatives who reside separately merely by virtue of their

relationship constitutes an abuse of the process of law.




APPLN-1958-2024 498A quashing.odt                                    4 of 6
7.    At this stage, it would be relevant to refer to the judgments of

the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Geeta Mehrotra v. State of

U.P., (2012) 10 SCC 741, 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 of IPC based on vague and sweeping allegations. On the same

point, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment in the case of

Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar, (2022) 6 SCC 599, while

referring to K Subba Rao v. State of Telangana, (2018) 14 SCC

452 observed thus:

      “16. Recently, in K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana 11, it was
      also observed that: (SCC p. 454, para 6)

            "6. ... The courts should be careful in proceeding against
            the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial
            disputes and dowry deaths. The 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."
                                                   (emphasis supplied)

.     In the facts of the case, this Court is of the view that the

allegations made in the FIR against the present Applicants are

vague and lack specific overt acts and hence FIR and consequent

proceedings are liable to be quashed and set aside. On the basis of

such allegations, if the Applicants are called upon to undergo rigors

of trial, it would lead to miscarriage of Justice.




APPLN-1958-2024 498A quashing.odt                                5 of 6
8.      In view of the above, application is allowed in terms of prayer

clauses ‘B’ and ‘B-1’.


9.      Fees    of    the      Learned    appointed     Counsel     for

Informant/Respondent No.2 is quantified at Rs. 10,000/- to be paid

by High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee, Aurangabad.



                                              (R. M. JOSHI, J.)
Umesh




APPLN-1958-2024 498A quashing.odt                                 6 of 6