RAHUL RAMDAS DHANAWADE AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

2026:BHC-AUG:42767-DB
                                                                         APPLN-3510-2024.odt



                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                             CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3510/2024

          1. Rahul Ramdas Dhanawade (Husband)
          2. Ramdas Mhasu Dhanawade (Father in law)
          3. Sunita Ramdas Dhanawade (Mother in law)
          4. Dipali Dilip Vetal (Sister in law)
          5. Varsha Indranil Kuskar (Husband of sister in law)
          6. Indranil Shantilal Kuskar (Husband of sister in law)
          7. Sonali Navnath Kusalkar (Sister in law)
          8. Navnath Suresh Kasalkar (Husband of Sister in law)
          9. Chanda Suresh Kusalkar (Grandmother in law)                   ...Applicants

                    Versus

          1. The State of Maharashtra
          2. Komal Rahul Dhanawade                                       ...Respondents

                                              ….
          Ms. S. G. Sonawane, Advocate for applicant
          Mr. K. D. Pote, Advocate for Respondent No. 2
          Mr. S. B. Jadhav, APP for Respondent - State
                                              ….

                                                            CORAM : R.M. JOSHI, J
                                                            DATE  : SEPTEMBER 16, 2026

          P. C. :

          1.             At the outset, it must be recorded that the application qua

          Applicant No. 1 stood disposed of as withdrawn by this Court’s order dated

          29 November 2024.


          2.             It is brought to the notice of the Court that during the pendency

          of this application, Applicant No. 2 - Ramdas Mhasu Dhanawade, has passed

          away, consequently, the proceedings stand abated qua Applicant No. 2.



                                              Page 1 of 5
                                                          APPLN-3510-2024.odt



3.          By this application, Applicant Nos. 3 to 6 seek quashment of

First Information Report bearing Crime No. 0476/ 2024, registered at

Parner Police Station, District Ahmednagar, for offences punishable under

Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, and 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian

Penal Code, along with the charge-sheet and the subsequent proceedings

pending before the learned Civil Judge Junior Division and Judicial

Magistrate First Class in RCC No. 288 of 2024, including the order issuing

summons.


4.          It is the case of the prosecution that the Komal Rahul

Dhanawade, lodged a First Information Report against her in-laws. The

marriage between the informant and Applicant No. 1 was solemnized on

21.12.2023 as per Hindu rites and customs. At the time of the wedding, the

parents of the informant gifted gold jewellery and household articles.

According to the informant, within a few days of the marriage, the in-laws

subjected her to physical and mental harassment, and the husband of the

informant demanded a dowry of Rs. 40 lakh from her parents for the

purpose of purchasing a flat in Pune. It is further alleged that due to the

non-fulfillment of this demand, the informant was starved, ill-treated, and

eventually driven out of her matrimonial home, while her gold ornaments

were retained by the applicant no. 1. Consequently, the subject FIR came to

be registered against the present applicants. Upon completion of the



                                 Page 2 of 5
                                                            APPLN-3510-2024.odt



investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed, and summons were issued to

the applicants in RCC No. 288 of 2024.


5.          Learned Counsel for the Applicants submitted that the

allegations in the FIR reveal no specific dates or time of the alleged

incidents and that the accusations are a mere afterthought. It was further

contended that the allegations are vague and lack evidence of physical or

mental harassment that would endanger life or constitute cruelty for

unlawful dowry demands. The counsel submitted that the informant has

falsely implicated all family members, including married sisters-in-law,

brothers-in-law, and an elderly grandmother-in-law, emphasizing that these

individuals reside separately. Furthermore, it was highlighted that

Respondent No. 2 failed to raise any allegations regarding a demand for

dowry during her appearance before the Women Grievance Cell. The

counsel contended that vague and omnibus allegations leveled against

distant family members in a matrimonial dispute, in the absence of specific

overt acts attributed to each individual, fail to justify the continuation of

criminal proceedings against them, and allowing such proceedings to persist

would amount to an abuse of the process of law. She placed reliance on the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Geeta Mehrotra v. State of UP

(2012) 10 SCC 741.




                                  Page 3 of 5
                                                              APPLN-3510-2024.odt



6.          Learned APP and learned counsel for Respondent No. 2

submitted that the First Information Report unequivocally discloses specific,

prima facie ingredients of physical and mental cruelty, unlawful harassment,

and a continuous demand for money. It was further contended that the non-

fulfillment of an unlawful demand for dowry amounting to Rs. 40 lakh for

the purchase of a flat in Pune was directed against the informant, thereby

subjecting her to physical assault, verbal abuse, and deliberate starvation.

Additionally, allegations in the FIR demonstrate specific roles and active

participation attributed to the husband and the in-laws regarding the

demand for dowry, physical harassment and the unlawful retention of her

gold ornaments. Furthermore, it was contended that the involvement of the

applicants is a matter for decision in the trial, and that the exercise of the

inherent powers of this Court would deprive the informant of her legitimate

right to prosecute the offenders for matrimonial cruelty.


7.          Perusal of the record and rival submissions of the both sides

that the allegations in FIR against the distant relatives are entirely omnibus,

vague and there is no active participation in the alleged harassment and

demand of dowry. The settled law laid down in the Geeta Mehrotra vs. State

of UP (2012) 10 SCC 741 and Kahkashan Kausar vs. State of Bihar (2022) 6

SCC 599 where the relatives who reside separately cannot be forced to face

trial based on vague and omnibus allegation. Furthermore, the material



                                   Page 4 of 5
                                                             APPLN-3510-2024.odt



placed on the record clearly reveals that the present crime registered against

the applicants is a case of over-impleadment arising out of the matrimonial

dispute, as several Applicants, including married sisters-in-law and brothers-

in-law who were married long before marriage of Applicant No. 1 and reside

separately in     Malegaon City, were roped into the proceedings without

establishing any direct involvement in the couple's matrimonial life. The

court observed that these general statements do not show any specific

demands of dowry or physical harm against these relatives. In the case of

State of Haryana vs. Chh. Bhajan Lal, (1992) SCC (cri) 426 by continuing

criminal proceedings against the applicants would constitute a clear abuse

of the judicial process.


8.            In view of the above, Application is allowed in terms of prayer

clauses ‘B’, ‘B-A’, and ‘B-B’.


                                                     (R. M. JOSHI, J.)
Malani




                                   Page 5 of 5