PRADHAN SHIVAJIRAO SONKAMBLE AND ANOTHERversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

2026:BHC-AUG:38734-DB
                                                                           937-APPLN-3960-24.odt




                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                          CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3960 OF 2024

          1. Pradhan Shivajirao Sonkamble
          2. Pranita Madhavrao Sonkamble                          ..APPLICANTS
                VERSUS
          1. State of Maharashtra
          2. Kanchan Pradhan Sonkamble                            ..RESPONDENTS

                                                ....
          Mr. M.K. Bhosale, Advocate for applicants
          Mr. S.B. Jadhav, A.P.P. for respondent no.1 - State
                                                ....

                                                       CORAM : R.M. JOSHI, J.
                                                       DATE : 27th AUGUST, 2026

          PER COURT :

          1.         Inspite of service, none for Respondent No.2. Hence heard in her

          absence.


          2.         The Applicants seek quashment of the F.I.R. as well as charge-

          sheet in connection with Crime No.537 of 2024 registered with Vivekanand

          Chowk Police Station, Dist. Latur for the offences punishable under Sections

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


          3.         The F.I.R. lodged by Respondent No.2 – Informant indicates that

          the allegation against the Applicants is that they were in illicit relationship.

          There is also allegation with regard to abusing and beating to the informant.


                                             1 / 5
                                                                  937-APPLN-3960-24.odt



4.         Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that Applicant No.2 is

not relative of the informant in order to attract provisions of Section 498-A of

the I.P.C. In so far as Applicant No.1 is concerned, he drew attention of the

Court to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of U. Suvetha Vs.

State and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 757 and Dechamma I.M. alias Dechamma

Koushik Vs. State of Karnataka and Another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3853 . In

so far as allegations with regard to the offences attributable under Sections

323, 504 and 506 of the I.P.C. are concerned, it is the contended that those

are non-cognizable in nature and as such charges against the Applicants in

respect of those offences not be maintainable.


5.         Learned A.P.P. opposed the application by pointing out the

allegations against the Applicants in the F.I.R. He submits that the allegations

against them are of causing assault on the victim.


6.         Since none appeared on behalf of Respondent No.2, Respondent

No.2 could not be heard.


7.         Prima facie, perusal of the F.I.R. indicates that reason for filing the

F.I.R. is the alleged illicit relationship between the Applicants. Except that

allegations, this Court finds no prima facie allegation against them. It would

be relevant to take note of the judgment in case of U. Suvetha (supra). In

paragraph no.9 of the said judgment, following observations are made :-



                                    2 / 5
                                                                937-APPLN-3960-24.odt



          “9.         The word ‘cruelty’ having been defined in terms of the
          aforesaid Explanation, no other meaning can be attributed thereto.
          Living with another woman may be an act of cruelty on the part of
          the husband for the purpose of judicial separation or dissolution of
          marriage but the same, in our opinion, would not attract the wrath
          of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. An offence in terms of
          the said provision is committed by the persons specified therein.
          They have to be the 'husband' or his 'relative'. Either the husband
          of the woman or his relative must have subjected her to cruelty
          within the aforementioned provision. If the appellant had not been
          instigating the husband of the first informant to torture her, as has
          been noticed by the High Court, the husband would be committing
          some offence punishable under the other provisions of the Indian
          Penal Code and appellant may be held guilty for abetment of
          commission of such an offence but not an offence under Section
          498-A of the Indian Penal Code.”


8.        Having regard to the said observation and considering the

allegations in the present F.I.R., there is substance in the contention of

learned counsel for the Applicants that no offence punishable under Section

498-A of the I.P.C. is made out against the Applicants.          In any case,

admittedly Respondent No.2 is not relative of Applicant No.1/Husband, and

in view of provision of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, no offence

could be said to have been made out against her.


9.        At this stage, it would be useful to refer to judgment of Hon’ble

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

others, 1992 SCC (SUPP) 1 335, which gives guidelines for the decision of

quashment of criminal proceedings. Relevant observations made therein read

thus :

                                  3 / 5
                                                      937-APPLN-3960-24.odt



“ 102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant
provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of
law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the
exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the
inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have
extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories
of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be
exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or
otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be
possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently
channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give
an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power
should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or
the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and
accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence
or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other
materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a
cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers
under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a
Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or
complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do
not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case
against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence,
no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of
a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so
absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no
prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is
sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the
provisions of the Code of the concerned Act (under which a
criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and
continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific

                        4 / 5
                                                                 937-APPLN-3960-24.odt



           provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious
           redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
           (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala
           fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an
           ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a
           view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”


10.        The guidelines laid down for quashment of criminal proceeding in

the above judgment, fully apply to the instance case.            Accepting the

allegations against the applicants as it is to be true, offence punishable under

Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code does not attract. Consequently, the

only cognizable offence is not sustainable. As result of this, the trial of non-

cognizable offence cannot be allowed to be proceeded on the basis of F.I.R.

and investigation carried out thereon. Having regard to these facts, to call

upon the applicants to undergo rigors of trial would be abuse of Court

process.


11.        As such, the Criminal Application deserves to be allowed and

accordingly allowed in terms of prayer clause [B] and [C-1].




                                                   ( R.M. JOSHI, J. )
SSD




                                   5 / 5