PRAMOD PANDIT DAUND AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

2026:BHC-AUG:46458-DB
                                                                          cri.appln.no.3614.2024.odt



                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                         BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                   CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3614/2024

          1.Pramod s/o Pandit Daund (Husband)
          2. Chitrakalabai w/o Pandit Daund (Mother-in-law)
          3. Pandit S/o Waluba Daund (Father-in-law)
          4. Sanjiwani W/o Rameshwar Ghanghav (Sister-in-law)
          5. Rameshwar S/o Laxman Ghanghav (Brother-in-law)
          6. Laxmi w/o Gajanan Kakde (Sister-in-law)
          7. Gajanan s/o Dagduba Kakde (Brother in law)                          ...Applicants

                    Versus

          1.The State of Maharashtra
          2. Sheetal w/o Pramod Daund                                            ...Respondents

          Mr. P. V. Suryawanshi, Advocate for Applicants
          Ms. Rani Bharuka-Bora, Advocate for Respondent No. 2 (Appointed)
          Mr. S. B. Narwade, APP for Respondent - State
                                                 ...

                                                                 CORAM : R.M. JOSHI, J
                                                                 DATE  : SEPTEMBER 29, 2026

          P. C. :

          1.                 After hearing learned counsel for both sides, when this Court has

          shown disinclination to grant relief to Applicant No. 1 husband, learned counsel

          for the Applicants, on instructions, seeks withdrawal of the application qua

          Applicant No. 1. The applicant therefore stands dismissed as withdrawn to his

          extent.


          2.                 By this application, Applicant Nos. 2 to 7 seek quashment of First

          Information Report bearing Crime No.0070/2024, registered at Ajintha Police

          Station District Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar for offences punishable under Sections

          498-A, 323, 504, and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the order


                                                   Page 1 of 5
                                                              cri.appln.no.3614.2024.odt



issuing process dated 25.6.2024 and order framing charges by the Learned Judicial

Magistrate First Class, Sillod District Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar dated 25.11.2024

and also the subsequent proceedings pending before the learned Judicial

Magistrate First Class, Sillod, District Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar in RCC No.

173/2024.


3.           It is a case of the Informant Sheetal Pramod Daund, who lodged a

First Information Report against the present applicants that she was married to

Applicant No. 1, Pramod Pandit Daund, in the year 2011 as per Hindu rites and

rituals. Three children, namely Punam, Komal, and Vansh, were born out of the

said wedlock. It is alleged that after the marriage, the in-laws subjected the

informant to continuous physical and mental harassment, starvation, and an illegal

demand of Rs. 5 lakh from her parents for the construction of a house. The

harassment culminated on 13.10.2022, when a dispute arose over household

groceries, during which Applicant No. 2 and Applicant No. 4 physically assaulted

the informant. Upon being informed of the incident to the husband i.e. Applicant

No. 1 allegedly beat her, subjected her to verbal abuse, reiterated the demand of

Rs. 5 lakh, and threatened the informant, while other relatives similarly abused

and threatened the informant, ultimately driving her out of the matrimonial home

to seek shelter at her parental residence. It is alleged that Applicant No. 1 had an

extramarital relationship with another woman and has refused to grant the

informant a share in the property. Thereafter, the informant, along with her father,

approached the Women’s Redressal Cell and attended the mediation sessions




                                     Page 2 of 5
                                                              cri.appln.no.3614.2024.odt



there, but Applicant No. 1 refused to cohabit without the fulfillment of the

demands for money. Therefore, the informant lodged the First Information Report.


4.           The learned counsel for the Applicants submits that the Applicants

have been falsely implicated in the present crime. It is submitted that the First

Information Report contains only general, vague, and omnibus allegations without

attributing any specific act, and role. It is further contended that there is an

inordinate and unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, as Respondent No. 2

allegedly left her matrimonial home on 13.10.2022, whereas the FIR was

registered only on 10.03.2024. It is further contended that the present criminal

proceedings are merely a counter-blast to the proceedings filed by Applicant No. 1

under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for restitution of conjugal rights.

The counsel highlights that no statement of any independent witness has been

recorded during the investigation, and the charge-sheet relies solely on stereotype

statements of interested relatives without providing specific details of the alleged

demand of Rs. 5 Lakhs. The counsel for the applicants relies upon the judgment of

the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Haryana v.s Bhajan Lal, (1992) SCC

(cri) 426 and Geeta Mehrotra v.s State of UP (2012) 10 SCC 741.


5.           Per contra, the learned APP and the learned counsel for Informant,

strongly opposed the application, submitting that the First Information Report as

well as the charge-sheet made out a prima facie case against all the Applicants. It

is submitted that the allegations are neither vague nor omnibus, but explicitly

detail continuous physical and mental cruelty, starvations, and demands for dowry

of Rs. 5 lakh for house construction. The learned counsel for Respondent No. 2

                                     Page 3 of 5
                                                              cri.appln.no.3614.2024.odt



contended that the specific incident of 13.10.2022, wherein the Informant was

physically assaulted over household grocery disputes, abused, and threatened,

which lead to the informant leaving the matrimonial home. It is further submitted

that the delay in registering the FIR stands explained by the bona fide efforts made

toward reconciliation through family elders and proceedings before the Women’s

Redressal Cell at Sillod. It is contended that disputed questions of fact cannot be

adjudicated at this stage.


6.            Upon perusal of the record placed before this court, this Court finds

that the allegations in the FIR and subsequent statements are general, vague, and

omnibus in nature. There is inordinate, unexplained delay in lodging the present

FIR whereas the alleged incident happened on 13.10.2022 that time the informant

left the matrimonial home. The record further indicates that Applicant No. 1 had

initiated proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for

restitution of conjugal rights, and the present prosecution appears to be a counter-

blast to the said matrimonial dispute. Furthermore, there are no specific dates,

instances, or distinct roles attributed toward the present Applicants, regarding any

independent act of cruelty or demand of dowry. The statements recorded during

investigation are largely identical, cyclostyled statements of interested family

members, without any independent corroboration. In view of the principles settled

by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (supra) and Geeta

Mehrotra v. State of U.P. (supra), continuing the criminal proceedings against the

Applicants would amount to an abuse of the process of law.




                                     Page 4 of 5
                                                               cri.appln.no.3614.2024.odt



7.             In view of the above, application is partly allowed in terms of prayer

clause ‘B’, ‘C-1’, and ‘C-2’.


9.             Fees of appointed Counsel for Respondent No. 2 is quantified at

Rs.10,000/- to be paid by High Court Legal Aid Services Sub-Committee,

Aurangabad.

                                                          (R. M. JOSHI, J.)
Malani




                                      Page 5 of 5