KISHORI RAMESH KALEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

2026:BHC-AUG:38753-DB




                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                          CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3698 OF 2024

                                     Kishori W/o Ramesh Kale
                                              Versus
                                The State of Maharashtra & Another

           Mr. D. M. Shinde, Advocate for the Applicant.
           Mrs. R. P. Gour, APP for Respondent No.1/State.
           Mr. Y. B. Mote h/f Mr. P. P. More, Advocate for Respondent No.2.

                                                CORAM     : R. M. JOSHI, J.
                                                DATE      : 21st AUGUST, 2026

           PER COURT :-

           1.    Heard learned Advocate for the Applicant, learned APP for

           Respondent No.1-State and learned Advocate for Respondent No.2.


           2.    The present Criminal Application is filed under Section 482 of the

           Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of First Information

           Report No.48 of 2021 registered with Shivaji Nagar Police Station,

           District Latur, for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 420,

           506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and

           the consequential charge-sheet and R.C.C. No.502 of 2022 pending

           before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latur, whereby cognizance

           was taken and process was issued against her, as well as the subsequent

           order dated 03.03.2025 passed in R.C.C. No.502 of 2022 whereby




           criapln3698.24.odt                                                 1 of 7
charge came to be framed against the Applicant.


3.    The    prosecution   case,   as   emerging   from   the   FIR,   is   that

Respondent No.2-informant is the wife of accused Sumeet Bhosale. The

marriage proposal of Sumeet Bhosale was conveyed to the family of the

informant through the present Applicant. It is alleged that when talks of

marriage were going on Sumeet Bhosale represented as a doctor

and relying upon such representation, the marriage was fixed and

solemnized on 27.02.2015. It is further alleged that after the marriage

the informant was sent to her parental home on the assurance that she

would subsequently be taken to Mumbai, where her husband was stated

to be practicing medicine. According to the informant, the matrimonial

dispute continued thereafter and, in the year 2021, she made enquiries

regarding the educational qualification of her husband and came to know

that he was not possessing the BDS degree as represented.


4.    On the basis of the said allegations, the FIR came to be registered

on 22.01.2021. The investigation was thereafter completed and charge-

sheet came to be filed. The charge-sheet was registered as R.C. C.

No.502 of 2022 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latur. The

specific case of the Applicant is that she is merely a relative who had

conveyed/suggested the marriage proposal. She herself was not aware

that Sumeet Bhosale was not a doctor or that any false representation



criapln3698.24.odt                                                          2 of 7
was being made regarding his qualification. It is submitted that the

family of the informant had independently made enquiries and had

proceeded with the marriage after satisfying themselves about the

proposal. It is further submitted that the material collected during

investigation does not disclose any active participation on the part of the

Applicant in the alleged cheating. On the contrary, the material referred

to in the application indicates that the family members of Sumeet

Bhosale had represented him as a doctor and that the Applicant had no

knowledge of the alleged misrepresentation.


5.           Learned Advocate for the Applicant submits that merely

because the Applicant had suggested the marriage proposal, she cannot

be prosecuted for an offence of cheating in the absence of any material

showing dishonest intention or active participation on her part. It is also

submitted that there are no specific allegations of cruelty or criminal

intimidation attributable to the Applicant. It is further submitted that the

Applicant does not fall within the category of persons against whom the

necessary ingredients of Section 498(A) of the IPC are attracted and that

the allegations against her are general in nature. It is submitted that

continuation of the proceedings against the Applicant would amount to

abuse of the process of law.


6.    Learned APP opposed the application. Learned Advocate for



criapln3698.24.odt                                                     3 of 7
Respondent No.2 also opposed the relief sought by the Applicant and

submitted that the allegations in the FIR and the material collected

during investigation are sufficient to proceed against the Applicant.

Considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the respective parties

and perused the FIR, charge-sheet and the other material placed on

record.


7.    At the outset, it is required to be noted that the Applicant has been

arraigned mainly on the allegation that she had suggested the marriage

proposal of accused Sumeet Bhosale to the family of the informant. The

material placed on record, however, does not disclose that the Applicant

had knowledge that Sumeet Bhosale was not possessing the qualification

which was represented to the informant and her family. For constituting

the offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC, the necessary

ingredients of cheating, including dishonest or fraudulent intention and

the role of the accused in inducing the person concerned, are required to

be disclosed. In the present case, the allegations and material against

the Applicant do not disclose her active participation in the alleged

misrepresentation or any dishonest intention on her part. The fact that

the Applicant had conveyed or suggested the marriage proposal, by

itself, cannot be treated as sufficient material to constitute the offence of

cheating against her, particularly when the material placed on record




criapln3698.24.odt                                                      4 of 7
does not indicate that she was aware of the alleged false representation

regarding the qualification of the bridegroom. Moreover, in view of the

statement on record it can be seen that the informant and her husband's

father are friends. This shows that there is no reason for the Applicant to

misrepresent the qualification of the groom.


8.     In so far as Section 498(A) of the IPC is concerned, there is no

specific allegation in the FIR showing that the present Applicant had

subjected the informant to cruelty as contemplated by the said provision.

The allegations against the Applicant are general in nature and no

specific overt act of cruelty attributable to her is disclosed. Likewise,

there is no specific allegation or material showing that the Applicant had

threatened the informant so as to attract the ingredients of Section 506

of the IPC. The power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure no doubt is required to be exercised sparingly. However, the

allegations in the FIR and the material collected during investigation,

even if taken at their face value, do not disclose the essential ingredients

of the offences alleged against Applicant, Continuation of the criminal

proceedings against Applicant would amount to abuse of the process of

law.


9.     In the present case, on a careful consideration of the material

available on record this court finds that the essential ingredients



criapln3698.24.odt                                                     5 of 7
constituting the offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC are not

made out against the Applicant. since there are no specific allegations

against the Applicant to attract the provisions of Sections 498-A and 506

of the IPC.


10.   In view of the above, continuation of the criminal proceedings

against the present Applicant would serve no useful purpose and would

amount to abuse of the process of law. The Applicant is, therefore,

entitled to the relief sought. Hence the following order:-

                                     ORDER

      (i)     The Criminal Application is allowed in terms of Prayer Clauses
      B, B1 B2 and C.

      (ii)    First Information Report No.48 of 2021 registered with
      Shivaji Nagar Police Station, District Latur, for the offences
      punishable under Sections 498(A), 420, 506 read with Section 34
      of the Indian Penal Code, insofar as the present Applicant – Kishori
      W/o Ramesh Kale – is concerned, is hereby quashed and set aside.
      (iii)   The    consequential     charge-sheet    No.98/2021     dated
      16.04.2022 and R.C.C. No.502 of 2022 pending before the learned
      Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latur, insofar as the present Applicant is
      concerned, are hereby quashed and set aside.

      (iv)    Consequently, the order dated 29.04.2022 passed by the
      learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latur, taking cognizance and
      issuing process against the present Applicant, and the order dated
      03.03.2025 framing charge against the Applicant, insofar as the



criapln3698.24.odt                                                     6 of 7
        Applicant is concerned, are hereby quashed and set aside.



11.     The observations made herein are confined only to the present

Applicant and shall not affect the proceedings against the other accused,

if any.



                                                     (R. M. JOSHI, J.)

B. S. Joshi




criapln3698.24.odt                                                  7 of 7