RAMESH SUKHADEV PATANGE AND OHTERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:42307-DB
                                                                        Cri.Appln.3508.24.odt



                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                           CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3508 OF 2024


          1.    Ramesh S/o Sukhadev Patange (Father-in-Law
          2.    Laxmibai W/o Ramesh Patange (Mother-in-Law)
          3.    Sachin S/o Ramesh Patange (Son-in-Law)
          4.    Geetanjali W/o Sachin Patange (Daughter-in-Law)
          5.    Priya W/o Ketan Aabhag (Sister-in-Law)
          6.    Samadhan S/o Ramesh Patange (Husband of Complainant)

                                                                            ... Applicants

                        Versus

          1.    The State of Maharashtra
          2.    The Police Sub-Inspector
          3.    Anushka W/o Samadhan Patange

                                                                          ...Respondents

          Ms. M. R. Jamdhale, Advocate for the Applicants
          Mr. S. B. Jadhav, APP for the Respondent/State
          Mr. J. R. Veer, Advocate for the complainant/Respondent No.3

                                                         CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.
                                                         DATED : 10th SEPTEMBER, 2026

          PER COURT :-

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

          shown its disinclination to grant relief to Applicant No.6-Husband of

          informant, Learned Counsel for Applicant, on instructions, seeks withdrawal

          of Application qua Applicant No.6. In this view, proceedings stands

          dismissed as withdrawn against Applicant No.6.


          2.    This application filed under section 482 of Code of Criminal

                                           Page 1 of 8
                                                          Cri.Appln.3508.24.odt



Procedure, 1973, the present Applicants seek quashment of FIR in Crime No.

190/2024 register with Purna Police Station, Dist. Parbhani for offence

punishable u/s. 498-A, 323, 504 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860


3.    It is the case of the prosecution that the marriage of Informant-

Anushka Samadhan Patange, was solemnized with Applicant No.6 according

to social customs, and a child was born. Within four to five months of the

marriage, the present Applicants allegedly began taunting and harassing her

on the premise that her parents failed to provide household articles due to

the lockdown. To alleviate harassment caused, the informant’s father paid

an amount of ₹1,00,000/- to the Applicants; however, the funds were

squandered, and the harassment continued. It's alleged that informant was

subjected to physical abuse and verbal harassment even during her

pregnancy, and following her delivery, she was coerced into heavy

household work, prompting temporary intervention by her maternal family

and local elders.


4.    Thereafter, the accused persons allegedly escalated their demands by

insisting on an additional sum of ₹2,00,000/- from her father for business

purposes and continued ill-treating her upon non-fulfillment of monetary

demand. It's further alleged that the situation worsed when the Applicant

No.6-husband returned home in an intoxicated state on eve of Holi and

assaulted informant. Subsequently, the other Applicants jointly drove the


                                 Page 2 of 8
                                                             Cri.Appln.3508.24.odt



informant and her minor son out of the matrimonial home. After residing at

her maternal home for a year and a half while enduring repeated telephonic

abuse, the complainant approached the Bharosa Cell, Parbhani, following

which, pursuant to directions from the Superintendent of Police, FIR came

to be lodged.


5.    Learned counsel for the Applicants submit that Applicants herein are

falsely implicated by the informant in order to cause harassment, so also

there is delay of almost 18 months in lodging the first information report. To

attribute the allegations against the present Applicants of they physically

and mentally harassing the Informant as alleged, the prosecution has to

show that that is sufficient evidence on record to indicate that the informant

has suffered physical and mental abuse at the instance of present Applicants.

He drew the attention of the court to the FIR to contend that the allegations

against the Applicants are generalized and arbitrary and basis of such vague

allegations Applicants cannot be tried. It is further submitted that Applicant

No.6-Husband attempted to conciliate with the informant by filing an

application dated 26/02/2024 to women's grievance committee, so also

proceedings under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of

conjugal rights was filed by the Applicant No.6 which shows his genuinity to

peacefully reside with informant. He finally submits that all the Applicant

Nos.1 to 5 reside separately distant from the matrimonial home and as such



                                  Page 3 of 8
                                                              Cri.Appln.3508.24.odt



offenses alleged cannot be levelled against them.


6.    Learned APP and Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 3 oppose any

relief sought by the present Applicants as the FIR clearly shows prima facie

case of cruelty under Section 498A of IPC being made out so also perusal of

FIR clearly show unlawful monetary demands being made. The attention of

the court is drawn to evidence on record to contend that there are specific

allegations against Applicants which shows complicity of the Present

Petitioners in causing the acts alleged against them. It is further argued that

claim of some Applicants living separately does not discharge them from the

offence, as they knowingly acted together causing harassment.


7.    For the purpose of deciding the present application, a crucial question
for consideration is whether the accusations levelled against the Applicants
fall under any of the categories as enumerated in the case of State of
Haryana and others Vs. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 Supreme Court
Cases 335. The relevant paragraph reads thus :-

      “ 102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant
      provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law
      enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the
      exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent
      powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and
      reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of
      illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent
      abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of
      justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly
      defned and suffciently channelised and infexible guidelines or rigid
      formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases
      wherein such power should be exercised.
      (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the

                                   Page 4 of 8
                                                           Cri.Appln.3508.24.odt



      complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in
      their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a
      case against the accused.
      (2) Where the allegations in the frst information report and other
      materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable
      offence, justifying an investigation by police offcers under Section
      156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the
      purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
      (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or
      complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not
      disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against
      the accused.
      (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable
      offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation
      is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as
      contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
      (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd
      and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person
      can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for
      proceeding against the accused.
      (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the
      provisions of the Code of the concerned Act (under which a criminal
      proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the
      proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or
      the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of
      the aggrieved party.
      (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala
      fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an
      ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a
      view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”


8.   From the record it's undisputed that the marriage between

Complainant/Respondent No.3 and Applicant No.6 was solemnised in 2020

as per social customs and rituals and out of the said wedlock a child was

born. In order to alleviate the harassment caused, the father of the

Complainant allegedly gave Rs.1,00,000 for purchase of household goods.

Attempts were made to conciliate between Complainant and Applicant No.6,


                                 Page 5 of 8
                                                               Cri.Appln.3508.24.odt



and the Complainant returned to her matrimonial home. Thereafter, it's

alleged that harassment persisted and as the Complainant/respondent No.3

along with her child was thrown out of her matrimonial Home, she started

residing with her parents. Thereafter, on 14/06/2024,         FIR came to be

registered against the present Applicants pursuant to a complaint made in

Bharosa Cell, Parbhani. Thus, there is a rift in conjugal bond respondent No.

3 and Applicant No.6-husband, so also there is a split in cordial relations

between respondent No. 3 and Applicant Nos.1 to 5, so also there is a

substantial delay in lodging of the FIR as rightly argued by learned counsel

for the Applicants.


9.    With regards to offence being made out, the prosecution has to show

from the evidence on record that prima facie case is made out against the

present Applicants as alleged. Bare Perusal of the FIR does not indicate any

offence being committed by present Applicant Nos.1 to 5, nor are there any

specific allegations being attributed against them of causing mental and

physical harassment to the Informant/Respondent No.3. So also further

perusal reveals that In Hindu Marriage Petition, a specific plea was raised by

the   Applicant       No.6-Husband      of     the   Complainant    about       the

Complainant/Respondent No.3 staying with him and no written statement

was filed by the informant in the said proceeding denying the said

contention. Order dated 05/07/2025 passed in HMP No.227/2024 indicates



                                     Page 6 of 8
                                                             Cri.Appln.3508.24.odt



that the application for restitution of conjugal rights came to be allowed in

absence of Respondent No. 3 which indicates the allegation levelled being

substanceless.


10.   Further perusal of the record shows that all of the Applicants Nos. 1 to

5 are residing separately distant from the matrimonial home of Respondent

No.3 and there are no specific, but generalized, omnibus and arbitrary

allegations against them of causing mental and physical harassment, so also

throwing her out of her matrimonial home along with her child.


11.   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,

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.


12.   The allegations levelled against Applicants lack specific overt acts and

details of physical and mental cruelty being caused indicating allegations

being purely Omnibus and made in order to bring the Applicant Nos. 1 to 5

in the sweep of the present crime lodged only because they are related to

Applicant No.6-Husband of Complainant. Prima facie this court is of the

view that involvement of the Applicant Nos. 1 to 5 is done with malafide

intentions. The aforesaid accusations, even if taken at face value and

                                  Page 7 of 8
                                                               Cri.Appln.3508.24.odt



accepted in their entirety, do not constitute any offence in view of guidelines

enumerated in the judgment of Hon'ble Apex in Bhajan Lal (Supra).


13.      In view of the above discussion, the proceedings against the Applicant

Nos. 1 to 5 needs to be quashed and set aside to prevent the abuse of courts

process and to protect their rights.


14.      Hence, the application stands allowed in terms of prayer clause “C”.




                                                     ( R. M. JOSHI, J.)
Malani




                                    Page 8 of 8