PRAVIN KACHRULAL PARAKHversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

2026:BHC-AUG:41823-DB
                                                                       APPLN-3863-2024.odt



                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                              CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3863 OF 2024
          1.        Pravin Kachrulal Parakh
          2.        Jyoti Pravin Parakh
          3.        Bhushan Dilip Ghiya
          4.        Sonali Bhushan Ghiya                       ...Applicants
                    Versus
          1.        The State of Maharashtra
          2.        Khushi Lalchand Parakh                         ...Respondents
          Mr. S. S. Bora, counsel for the Applicants
          Ms. R. P. Gour, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1 – State

                                                             CORAM :R.M. JOSHI, J
                                                             DATE  :SEPTEMBER 08, 2026

          P. C. :

          1.             Heard learned Counsel for the applicants and learned A.P.P. for

          respondent No.1 – State. Respondent No.2, though served, has remained

          absent. The record indicates that by order dated 18.08.2026, respondent

          No.2/informant was served and was absent. The matter was thereafter

          directed to be heard and decided on merits in her absence.


          2.             By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

          Procedure, the applicants seek quashing and setting aside of the First

          Information Report dated 08.03.2024 bearing C.R. No.90 of 2024 registered

          with City Police Station, Chopda, District Jalgaon, for the offences

          punishable under Sections 323, 498-A, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of

          the Indian Penal Code and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

                                               Page 1 of 8
                                                                APPLN-3863-2024.odt



3.            Initially, the application was filed seeking quashing of the First

Information Report. During the pendency of the proceedings, the charge-

sheet came to be filed. By order dated 02.01.2025, leave was granted to the

applicants to amend the application and to place the charge-sheet on record.


4.            The present applicants are arraigned as accused in the aforesaid

crime. Applicant No.1 Pravin Kachrulal Parakh is stated to be the cousin

father-in-law of respondent No.2. Applicant No.2 Jyoti Pravin Parakh is

stated to be the cousin mother-in-law. Applicant No.3 Bhushan Dilip Ghiya is

the husband of applicant No.4 and applicant No.4 Sonali Bhushan Ghiya is

stated to be the sister-in-law of respondent No.2. The applicants are shown

to be residing separately in Nashik District.


5.            The allegations in the First Information Report arise out of the

matrimonial     relationship   between     respondent    No.2    and     Lalchand

Hukumchand Parakh. It is stated that their marriage was solemnized on

06.03.2016 at village Sakori, Taluka Malegaon, District Nashik, according to

Hindu rites and ceremonies. A daughter was born out of the said wedlock. It

is alleged that for about six months after the marriage respondent No.2 was

treated well, but thereafter she was subjected to harassment. It is alleged

that her husband was suspicious in nature and used to quarrel with her on

petty issues and had also slapped her.


6.            It is further alleged that her father-in-law, mother-in-law, sister-

                                    Page 2 of 8
                                                              APPLN-3863-2024.odt



in-law, cousin father-in-law, cousin mother-in-law and other relatives were

abusing and ill-treating her. One of the allegations is that the accused

persons demanded an amount of Rs.50,000/- from the brother of

respondent No.2 and that on account of such demand she was subjected to

ill-treatment. It is further alleged that on 01.01.2020 her husband brought

her to her parental house and thereafter she continued to reside with her

parents. Respondent No.2 is stated to have approached the Mahila Takrar

Nivaran Kendra on 12.10.2023. According to the allegations, the accused

persons did not attend the proceedings before the said authority. Thereafter,

on 08.03.2024, respondent No.2 lodged the First Information Report with

Chopda City Police Station against eight persons including the present

applicants.


7.            The applicants have approached this Court contending that the

allegations made against them are vague, general and omnibus in nature.

According to the applicants, no specific date, time or particular overt act has

been attributed to any of the present applicants.


8.            It is submitted that applicant Nos.1 and 2 are residing at

Nashik, whereas applicant Nos.3 and 4 are residing at Naigaon, Taluka

Sinnar, District Nashik. It is therefore contended that the applicants have

been implicated merely because of their relationship with the husband of

respondent No.2. It is further submitted that the First Information Report


                                   Page 3 of 8
                                                              APPLN-3863-2024.odt



does not disclose any specific incident or overt act attributable to each of the

present applicants. According to the applicants, the allegations are made

against several relatives collectively without specifying the individual role of

each accused.


9.           The applicants have relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajan Lal and others,

1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, contending that where the allegations, even if

taken at their face value, do not disclose the commission of an offence, or

where continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the

process of law, the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court can be exercised.

Reliance has also been placed upon Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and others

Vs. State of Bihar and others, (2022) 6 SCC 599 , particularly with regard to

general and omnibus allegations made against relatives of the husband in

matrimonial disputes. The applicants have further relied upon the judgment

in Achin Gupta Vs. State of Haryana, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 759 contending

that criminal proceedings ought not to be continued where the material

placed on record does not disclose a specific role of the concerned accused

in commission of the alleged offences.


10.          Learned APP opposed the application by contending that the

allegations against the applicants are sufficient to make them to undergo

trial.


                                   Page 4 of 8
                                                               APPLN-3863-2024.odt



11.          Before considering the merits of the application, it would be

appropriate to bear in mind the settled principles governing exercise of

inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The inherent jurisdiction of this Court is intended to prevent abuse of the

process of any Court and to secure the ends of justice. Such jurisdiction is

required to be exercised sparingly and with due caution. Ordinarily, the

High Court does not undertake a detailed appreciation of evidence while

considering a petition for quashing of criminal proceedings. However, where

the allegations contained in the First Information Report and the material

collected during investigation, even if accepted at their face value, do not

disclose the commission of the alleged offence against a particular accused,

or where continuation of the proceedings would result in abuse of the

process of law, this Court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction.


12.          In the present case, the allegations concerning matrimonial

discord and alleged ill-treatment are primarily directed towards the husband

and his family members. As regards the present applicants, the allegations

are substantially general and collective in nature.


13.          On careful consideration of the allegations, this Court finds that

there is no specific and distinct overt act attributed to applicant Nos.1 to 4

so as to demonstrate their individual involvement in the alleged offences.

The First Information Report refers to the relatives collectively and does not


                                    Page 5 of 8
                                                             APPLN-3863-2024.odt



contain sufficient particulars indicating as to when, where and in what

manner each of the present applicants committed the alleged acts. The fact

that the applicants are relatives of the husband, by itself, cannot be treated

as sufficient material to subject them to a criminal prosecution. Particularly

in matrimonial disputes, it is necessary to examine whether there are

specific allegations disclosing the ingredients of the alleged offence against

each individual accused


14.         In the present matter, applicant Nos.1 and 2 are shown to be

residing at Nashik, whereas applicant Nos.3 and 4 are shown to be residing

at Naigaon, Taluka Sinnar, District Nashik. Their separate residence has also

been relied upon by the applicants in support of their contention that they

have been unnecessarily implicated in the matrimonial dispute. The

allegation regarding demand of Rs.50,000/- is also made against the

accused persons collectively. There is no specific material apparent from the

allegations placed before this Court which would establish the individual

participation of the present applicants in making such demand or in

subjecting respondent No.2 to cruelty in the manner contemplated by

Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.


15.         Likewise, the allegations regarding abuse, harassment and

intimidation have not been supported, insofar as the present applicants are

concerned, by specific particulars of the alleged incidents or by attribution


                                  Page 6 of 8
                                                               APPLN-3863-2024.odt



of a distinct role to each applicant. It is true that at the stage of considering

a petition for quashing, the Court is not expected to conduct a meticulous

appreciation of evidence. However, where the allegations are so general in

nature that they do not disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged

offences against the concerned accused, permitting the prosecution to

continue merely on the basis of their relationship with the husband would

not advance the cause of justice.


16.          The principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Bhajan Lal (supra) and the subsequent decisions relied upon by the

applicants make it clear that criminal proceedings can be quashed where the

allegations, even if taken at their face value, do not make out the alleged

offence against the accused or where continuation of such proceedings

would amount to abuse of the process of Court. In Kahkashan Kausar @

Sonam (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also considered the effect of

general and omnibus allegations against relatives in matrimonial disputes.

The principle emerging from the said decision is that mere implication of

relatives, without specific allegations indicating their individual role, cannot

by itself become the basis for continuation of criminal prosecution.


17.          Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present

case, this Court is of the view that the allegations against the present

applicants do not contain sufficient particulars to constitute the offences


                                    Page 7 of 8
                                                                  APPLN-3863-2024.odt



alleged against them. The material placed before this Court does not

disclose a specific role attributable to applicant Nos.1 to 4 which would

justify continuation of the prosecution against them. It is also significant

that respondent No.2, despite service, has chosen not to remain present

before this Court. The order dated 18.08.2026 records that respondent

No.2/informant was served and was absent, and the matter was directed to

be heard and decided on merits even in her absence on the subsequent date.


18.                In view of the nature of the allegations, the separate residence

of the applicants, absence of specific overt acts and the settled principles

governing exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, this Court is satisfied that continuation of the criminal

proceedings against the present applicants would amount to abuse of the

process of law.


19.                Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the

present application deserves to be allowed insofar as the present applicants

are concerned. Hence, application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses ‘b-

1’, ‘c’ & ‘c-1’.



                                                          (R. M. JOSHI, J.)
Malani




                                        Page 8 of 8