Bombay High Court

CHETAN S/O KALYANRAO PATIL AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: NEERAJ P DHOTE

Holding

The court quashed the FIR to the extent of the father‑in‑law and the two sisters‑in‑law, finding the allegations insufficient, and dismissed the application as withdrawn for the husband and his wife.

Summary

The applicants filed a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking quash of FIR No. 79/2024, which alleged offences under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 read with 34 of the IPC. The FIR implicated the husband, his father, and two sisters‑in‑law of the informant, but the complaint against the father‑in‑law and sisters‑in‑law was found to be vague and omnibus. The court held that proceeding against them would amount to an abuse of process. Consequently, the application was allowed in part, quashing the FIR with respect to the father‑in‑law and the two sisters‑in‑law, while the application concerning the husband and his wife was treated as withdrawn. The order of issuance of summons dated 16‑04‑2024 was set aside for the quashed applicants.

Issues considered

Whether the FIR containing vague and omnibus allegations against the father‑in‑law and sisters‑in‑law can be quashed under Section 482 CrPC.
Whether the application for quash can be entertained for the husband and his wife when it has been withdrawn.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 323, 34, 498-A, 506

Subjects

Section 482 CrPC
quash of FIR
vague allegations
omnibus complaint
IPC 498-A
IPC 323
IPC 506
abuse of process
family dispute

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:19759-DB
920Appln2207-24

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2207 OF 2024

1. Chetan s/o Kalyanrao Patil

2. Kalyanrao s/o Manikrao Patil

3. Shobha w/o Kalyanrao Patil

4. Ashwini w/o Audumbar Vaze ... Applicants

5. Anjali w/o Rajendra Biradar

VERSUS

1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Police Station officer,
MIDC Police Station, Latur

2. Priyanka w/o Chetan Patil ... Respondents

Mr. Rahul P. Cheble, Advocate for the Applicants
Mr. Rajdeep D. Raut, APP for Respondent No.1 State
Mr. Ravindra S. Shinde h/for Mr. V.T. Sakolkar, Advocate for Resp. No.2

CORAM : NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.
Dated : 30th April, 2024.

PER COURT :-

1. This is an Application under Section 482 of the Criminal

Procedure Code, 1973 for quashing the FIR bearing Crime No.

79/2024 registered with MIDC Police Station Latur, District Latur for

the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 read with

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, consequential R.C.C.

No.524/2024 pending on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate, First

Class, Latur and the order dated 16.04.2024 of issuance of summons

against the Applicants.

1 of 3
920Appln2207-24

2. Heard the learned Advocate for the Applicants, learned APP

for Respondent No. 1- State and learned Advocate for Respondent

No.2-informant. With their assistance, perused the papers on record.

3. The Application to the extent of Applicant No.1/husband-

Chetan is already withdrawn as seen from the order dated 11.12.2024.

It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Applicants that, he will

not press the application to the extent of Applicant No.3- Shobha.

4. It is the case of the prosecution that, Respondent No.2-

Informant got married with Applicant/Accused No.1 on 14.05.2019. In

the marriage, valuable items were presented. After the marriage,

Respondent No.2-Informant went to reside with her husband. During

her stay at matrimonial house, she was harassed by the accused

persons. One year prior to the report, she came to her parent’s house.

A complaint was made with the Women Cell, which resulted the in-laws

refused to take the Informant back to her matrimonial house.

Eventually, the crime came to be registered.

5. On going through the F.I.R. it is clear that, omnibus and

vague allegations are made against Applicant Nos. 2, 4 and 5, who are

father-in-law and sisters-in-law respectively of the Informant. The F.I.R.

lacks specific allegation against Applicant Nos. 2, 4 and 5. The other

material on record do not make the prosecution case better against

these applicants. The sisters-in-law i.e. Applicant Nos. 4 and 5 are

2 of 3
920Appln2207-24

married and residing separately since the beginning. Asking them to

face the trial on the basis of omnibus and vague allegations would

amount to abuse of the process of law.

6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Application is

allowed to the extent of Applicant No.2- Kalyanrao Manikrao Patil,

Applicant No.4- Ashwini Audumbar Vaze and Applicant No.5-Anjali

Rajendra Biradar. The F.I.R. bearing Crime No. 79/2024 registered

with MIDC Police Station Latur, District Latur for the offences

punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 read with Section 34 of the

Indian Penal Code, 1860, consequential R.C.C. No. 524/2024 pending

on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Latur and order of

issuance of summons dated 16.04.2024 are quashed and set aside to

the extent of Applicant No.2 and Applicant No.4 and Applicant No.5.

The Application stands disposed of as withdrawn to the extent of

Applicant No.1-Chetan and Applicant No.3 -Shobha.

(NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.)

JPChavan

3 of 3

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…