BALAJI LAXMAN DORANPALLE AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

2026:BHC-AUG:39448-DB




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                            CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2826 OF 2024

           1. Balaji Laxman Doranpalle
           2. Laxman Sakharam Doranpalle
           3. Mangalbai Laxman Doranpalle
           4. Sudam Laxman Doranpalle
           5. Ramkishan Hari Kature
           6. Hari Kondiba Kature
           7. Kacharubai Hari Kature                              … APPLICANTS

                 VERSUS

           1. The State of Maharashtra
           2. Shital Balaji Doranpalle                           … RESPONDENTS

                                                ...
           Mr. S. M. Mule, Advocate for Applicants (Appointed through Legal Aid)
           Mr. S. B. Narwade, APP for Respondent – State
           Mr. B. T. Bodhke, Advocate for Respondent No. 2 (Appointed)

                                                    CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.
                                                    DATED    : 28th AUGUST, 2026

           PER COURT :-

           1.    After hearing learned Counsels for both sides and when this Court has

           shown disinclination to grant relief to Applicant No.1, Balaji Laxman

           Doranpalle, learned Counsel for the Applicants, on instructions, seeks

           withdrawal of Application qua Applicant No. 1, Balaji Laxman Doranpalle.


           2.    In view of this, application stands dismissed as withdrawn qua

           Applicant No. 1, Balaji Laxman Doranpalle.


           949 APPLN 2826.2024(aishmb).odt                                         1 of 5
3.    This Application is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973, the present Applicants seek quashment of First Information

Report in Crime No. 0123/2024 dated 03.05.2024 registered with Vasmat

Rural Police Station, District Hingoli for offences punishable under Sections

498A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short

“IPC”).


4.    The case of the prosecution is that Respondent No.2 being Informant

has lodged the FIR thereby alleging that the present Applicants have caused

cruelty, hurt and criminal intimidation. The Informant, Shital Balaji

Dornalpalle married Applicant No. 1, Balaji Laxman Dornalpalle, on

11.06.2023 according to Hindu rites and customs. Following the marriage, the

Informant resided with her husband and his family members including her

father-in-law (Applicant No. 2), mother-in-law (Applicant No. 3), brother-in-

law (Applicant No. 4), maternal uncle-in-law (Applicant No. 5), grandfather-

in-law (Applicant No. 6), and grandmother-in-law (Applicant No. 7) at

Loleshwar. Although treated well during the initial month of marriage, the

Informant was subsequently subjected to continuous physical and mental

harassment. The Applicants repeatedly taunted her regarding household

chores, insulted her by labeling her as bringing bad omen, and instigated

Applicant No. 1 who subjected her to physical beatings. Furthermore,



949 APPLN 2826.2024(aishmb).odt                                        2 of 5
Applicants jointly coerced and harassed the Informant to demand ₹1,00,000/-

from her parental home to purchase a new motorcycle.


5.    Despite mediation attempts by the Informant’s parents and relatives,

the Applicants persisted in their illegal monetary demands, threatening to

beat her to death unless the amount was paid. On 29.09.2023, Applicants

assaulted the informant with slaps and punches, issued death threats over her

failure to secure the demanded money, and forcefully dropped her at

Dagadpimpri. Following the incident, the Informant approached the Women

Vigilance Committee (Bharosa Cell), Office of the Superintendent of Police,

Hingoli, which issued an action letter dated 03.05.2024 (No. 196/24). On the

basis of her oral statement recorded at Vasmat Rural Police Station on

03.05.2024, an FIR was registered.


6.    The learned Counsel for the Applicants submitted that the allegations

made in FIR are false and imaginary and there is no material to connect the

Applicants with the commission of crime. He submitted that there are no

specific allegations against the present Applicants and the present case is filed

with intention to harass the Applicants. He further submits that the Applicant

Nos. 4 to 7 are not residents of Aurangabad City or where the FIR has been

registered and that they are residing separately from the matrimonial house of

the Informant and the same is substantiated by placing evidence on record.


949 APPLN 2826.2024(aishmb).odt                                            3 of 5
7.    Further, the learned Counsel for the Applicants contended that the

entire family has been falsely implicated by Informant in the present FIR.

There is no specific allegation against the present Applicants about any ill-

treatment and except for general allegations of harassment caused that have

been made against all the Applicants.


8.    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 under Section 498A of IPC being made out. It is

further argued that claim of the Applicants living separately does not

exonerate them from the offence, as they actively acted together causing

cruelty.


9.    A bare perusal of the record shows that all of the Applicant Nos. 4 to 7

are residing separately distant from the matrimonial home of the Informant.

Though Applicant Nos. 2 and 3 were sharing the common house, there are no

specific allegations against them of causing harassment to the Respondent No.

2.


10.   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 ,



949 APPLN 2826.2024(aishmb).odt                                          4 of 5
Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar, (2022) 6 SCC 599 , 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.


11.   It is well-settled that a criminal prosecution under Section 498A of the

IPC cannot be sustained against family members on the basis of general and

uncorroborated assertions without concrete details regarding time, place, and

individual participation. 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.


12.   In view of above, application qua Applicant No. 1 stands dismissed as

withdrawn and application qua Applicant Nos. 2 to 7 is allowed in terms of

prayer clauses ‘B’ and ‘B-1’.


13.   Fees of both learned appointed Counsel for is quantified at Rs. 10,000/-

to be paid by High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee, Aurangabad.



                                                       ( R. M. JOSHI, J.)
ssp


949 APPLN 2826.2024(aishmb).odt                                             5 of 5