ANUPRIT RAJENDRA MOHITE AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

2026:BHC-AUG:38653-DB
                                                                              APPLN-3509.odt



                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                         CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3509 OF 2024

          1.    Anuprit Rajendra Mohite (Husband)
          2.    Rajendra Dattatray Mohite (Father-in-law)
          3.    Suvarna Rajendra Mohite (Mother-in-law)
          4.    Rutuja Pravin Jadhav (Sister-in-law)
          5.    Pravin Chandrakant Jadhav (Brother-in-law)                   …Applicants

                Versus

          1.    The State of Maharashtra
          2.    Shital Anuprit Mohite (Complainant/Wife)                 ...Respondents

          Mr. G. L. Deshpande, Advocate for the Applicants
          Ms. P. J. Bharad, APP for the Respondent/State
          Mr. R. V. Gore, Advocate for Respondent No.2

                                                   CORAM          : R. M. JOSHI, J.
                                                   DATED          : 21st AUGUST, 2026
          PER COURT :-

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

          Procedure, 1973 the present Applicants are seeking quashment of

          chargesheet bearing No. 122/2024 registered as impugned RCC No.

          276/2024 pending before the Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class,

          Bhokardan, Tal. Bhokardan, Dist. Jalna in respect of FIR No. 158/2024

          registered     with   Kannada     City         Police   Station,    Chhatrapati

          Sambhajinagar for offence punishable u/s. 498-A, 323, 504, 506, r/w

          34 of Indian Penal Code (IPC).


          2.    It's the case of the Informant/Respondent No.2-Wife that her

          marriage with the Applicant No.1/husband                 was solemnized on

          28/02/2023 as per Hindu rites and customs. It is alleged that prior to


                                           Page 1 of 8
                                                             APPLN-3509.odt



the marriage, the Applicant No.3/mother-in-law enticed her with false

assurances regarding her son’s package being Rs.21,00,000/-, along

with promises of gold jewelry and a bungalow in Pune. At the time of

marriage, the Complainant father provided household items, 12 Tolas

of gold and silver jewelry, and a cash dowry of ₹7,00,000/- as

demanded by the present Applicants/in-laws. However, shortly after

the marriage, on 03/03/2023, allegedly an altercation occurred where

the Applicant No.1/Husband verbally abused, slapped, and punched the

Respondent No.2-Wife.


3.   It is further alleged that after an initial period of about one and a

half to two months, the Applicant No.3/mother-in-law and Applicant

No. 2/father-in-law began subjecting the Informant to physical and

mental harassment over petty domestic matters. Applicant Nos. 1 to 3

put forth an unlawful demand of ₹10,00,000/- as a condition for

permitting her to reside in the matrimonial home, while keeping her

starved, and mentally and physically harassing her. Furthermore, the

Applicant No.4/sister-in-law and Application No.5/brother-in-law, used

to visit weekly, subjecting her to verbal abuses causing mental

distress, so also provoked the Applicants/in-law against her. Unable to

endure the continuous harassment, she informed about the same to

her aunt-Rekha Bhosale, who in turn informed about the said

harassment to father-Rajendra Ramrao Bhosale, and other family

members. The situation escalated on 15/08/2023 when the Informant


                                Page 2 of 8
                                                                 APPLN-3509.odt



went to Pune with permission to visit her ailing cousin, Tejal Jadhav.

On 17/08/2023, when she requested her husband to pick her up, he

refused to cohabit with her. Thereupon, she traveled to Satara to her

sister-in-law’s residence, where Applicants gathered and expressed

their refusal to maintain her in the matrimonial home unless their

demand for money was fulfilled. They forcibly placed her in a car,

transported her back to Pune, and handed her over to her aunt’s

custody.   Since   15/08/2023,   the    complainant    has   been    residing

separately from her matrimonial home at her parental home. Thus, on

07/04/2024,   the   offence   was   lodged     by   Respondent    No.2     and

chargesheet came to be filed.


4.   The learned council for the Applicants summit that this is a case

of deliberate 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 Respondent No.2

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 account of such baseless and vague allegations the

Applicant cannot be tried. It's his further contention that statements of

witnesses cannot be relied upon as they are not eyewitness to the said


                                 Page 3 of 8
                                                            APPLN-3509.odt



incident, so also the witnesses are extended family members of

Respondent No.2 and her family. He drew attention of the court to

inconsistencies in the statement of the Information and witnesses

which makes the allegations improbable. He further submits that it

cannot be said that elements of the offence alleged against the present

applicants are made out. Finally he submits that there are no

antecedents against the present Applicants.


5.   The learned APP and Learned Counsel for information/Respondent

No.2 strongly opposed grant of any relief to the applicants. They

submit that from the bare perusal of investigation papers the offence

alleged is made out against the present Applicants. The attention of the

court is drawn to the evidence on record to substantiate that there is

sufficient evidence on record to fulfill the elements of offence under

section 498A of IPC. The learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2

further contends that at this stage the court has no power to appreciate

the evidence on record under section 482 of CrPC, the same would be a

matter of trial and at present stage the court only has to see if the

offence, on face of record, is made by relying upon material available.

It is also argued that the alleged inconsistency in the statements of

witnesses cannot be gone into and considered at this stage. To support

the above submission reliance is placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble

Supreme court in case of Md. Allauddin Khan vs The State of Bihar and

Ors reported in SLP.(Crl.) No. 1151 of 2018, State of M.P. vs AWADH


                                Page 4 of 8
                                                           APPLN-3509.odt



KISHORE GUPTA AND OTHERS reported in (2004) 1 SCC 691, CHAND

DHAWAN(Smt) vs JAWAHAR LAL AND OTHERS reported in (1992) 3

SCC 317.


6.   Prima facie perusal of record shows that the marriage between

Complainant/Respondent No.2-Wife and Applicant No.1/Husband was

solemnised on 28/02/2023 in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals.

The Respondent No.2, after attending her sick cousin in Pune, hurried

to home Applicant No.4/Sister-in-law in satara and present Applicants

expressed their displeasure and denied cohabiting with the Respondent

No.2 and sent her back to Pune in her aunt's custody. Thereafter, the

Respondent No.2 started living separately from matrimonial Home

cohabiting with her parents from 15/08/2023. On 28/03/2024 a legal

notice was sent to the Respondent No.2 for dissolution of marriage on

grounds of mental harassment and cruelty by the Applicant No.1 and a

reply to the said notice was sent by Respondent No.2 on 22/04/2024.

Therefore, Respondent No.2 registered a complaint against the present

Applicants and on 07/04/2024 crime came to be lodged. Thus, this

indicates that there is a split in conjugal bond between Respondent No.

2-wife and Applicant No.1/husband, and crack in relations between

Applicant Nos. 1 to 5/in-laws and Respondent No.2 some time after

solemnisation of marriage of complainant/Respondent No.2, and in any

case for a period of almost 1 years prior to lodging of report, the

informant/Respondent No.2 is residing separately along with her


                               Page 5 of 8
                                                                     APPLN-3509.odt



parents. Further perusal of record indicates that there are specific

allegations attributed against Applicant No.1 about he harassing and

abusing Respondent No.2 on 03/03/2023 in an intoxicated state on an

inquiry made by her with regards to Applicants drinking habits which

indicates there is prima facie material against Applicant No.1 of he

subjecting Respondent No.2 to cruelty and causing distress.


7.    In so far as allegations against Applicant Nos. 2 to 5/in-law of

they harassing the informant/Respondent No.2 is concerned, the record

does not   indicate any specific allegations against them. Allegations

against Applicant Nos. 2 to 3 are vague and omnibus and only

regarding they verbally abusing and causing physical and mental

harassment. With regards to allegations attributed to Applicant Nos. 4

to 5/ in-law are concerned, they resided separately away from

matrimonial home and used to visit every week and               they verbally

abused and provoked Applicant No. 2 to 3 against Respondent No.2. On

the basis of these omnibus allegations as apparent from record,

Applicants implication in the said crime is sought.


8.    In so far as statements of witnesses recorded are concerned, the

perusal of the same indicates specific allegations are levelled of

physical   and   mental    harassment          being   caused   by      Applicant

No.1/Husband upon present Respondent No.2 and omnibus allegations

of verbal abuses, physical and mentally cruelty are being attributed to



                                 Page 6 of 8
                                                              APPLN-3509.odt



Applicant Nos. 2 to 5 which are not sufficient to implicate the

Applicants as culpable for acts alleged. So also, it's evident from record

that there is variance in the statements recorded of witnesses and

informant/Respondent No.2, which is not insignificant in order not to

take the same into consideration.


9.    At this stage it would be relevant to refer to the Judgment of

Hon’ble Apex Court tendered by Learned Counsel for the Respondent

No.2 in case of Md. Allauddin Khan vs The State of Bihar and Ors

reported in SLP.(Crl.) No. 1151 of 2018, State of M.P. vs AWADH

KISHORE GUPTA AND OTHERS reported in (2004) 1 SCC 691, CHAND

DHAWAN(Smt) vs JAWAHAR LAL AND OTHERS reported in (1992) 3

SCC 317 wherein it's held that the High Court possesses wide inherent

powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

(Cr.P.C.), but it must not exercise them to stifle a legitimate

prosecution. In several judgments Hon’ble Supreme Court has referred

to the tendency of roping the relatives/distant relatives of the husband

in the complaints involving provisions under section 498A of Indian

Penal Code.


10.   Bare perusal of the investigation papers indicate that there are

prima facie allegations against Applicant No.1/Husband of he causing

mental and physical harassment to Informant/Respondent No.2.

further perusal of record shows that Applicant Nos. 2 to 5/in-law are



                                Page 7 of 8
                                                            APPLN-3509.odt



brought into the domain of this crime in order to cause harassment and

distress. Prima facie this Court is of the view that involvement of the

Applicant Nos. 2 to 5/in-law is done with malafide intentions. The

aforesaid accusations, even if taken at face value and accepted in their

entirety, do not constitute any offence as against Applicant Nos. 2 to

5/in-law.


11.     In view of the above discussion, it becomes evident that the

Applicant Nos. 2 to 5/in-law being close to the husband have been

roped under Section 498A IPC without specific allegations, purely to

settle personal vendetta. Allowing such proceedings to continue against

Applicant Nos. 2 to 5/in-law would be a gross abuse of the courts

process. Consequently, the FIR and consequential proceedings against

the Applicant Nos. 2 to 5/in-law are liable to be quashed and set aside.

As there is evidence against Applicant No1/Husband of offence

committed under 498A of IPC as apparent from record, no relief can be

granted in his favour.


12.     The petition therefore stands partly allowed to the extent of
Applicant nos. 2 to 5 in terms of prayer clauses "C” and “H”.

13.     The above observations are prima facie in nature and shall not

prejudice the Applicant No.1/Husband during the course of trial.


                                                    (R. M. JOSHI, J.)
Umesh




                                Page 8 of 8