SUMAN NANABHAU BEDRE AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

2026:BHC-AUG:41238-DB
                                             1                      929APPLN401.2025.odt

                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                           929 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 401 OF 2025

               1.    Suman W/o Nanabhau Bedre,
                     Age 81 years, Occu. Nil,
                     R/o Flat No. 20, Building No. 1,
                     Pritam Nagar Cooperative Housing Society,
                     Near Rahul Nagar, Kothrud,
                     Pune City, Dist. Pune.                    ...... (Mother in law)
               2]    Nanabhau S/o Namdeo Bedre,
                     (Nanasaheb S/o Nanabhau Bedre as per FIR)
                     Age 81 years, Occu. Nil,
                     R/o Flat No. 20, Building No. 1,
                     Pritam Nagar Cooperative Housing Society,
                     Near Rahul Nagar, Kothrud,
                     Pune City, Dist. Pune.                    ....(Father-in-law)

               3]    Shivaji S/o Nanabhau Bedre,
                     Age 45 years, Occu. Private Service,
                     R/o Flat No. 20, Building No. 1,
                     Pritam Nagar Cooperative Housing Society,
                     Near Rahul Nagar, Kothrud,
                     Pune City, Dist. Pune.                    ....(Brother in law)
                                                                   APPLICANTS.
                                                                    (Original Accused)
                           VERSUS

               1]    The State of Maharashtra
                     Through The Investigation Officer,
                     Kotwali Police Station,
                     Tq. and District Ahilyanagar,
                     (Copy to serve on Public Prosecutor
                     High Court of Judicature of Bombay Bench At Aurangabad).

               2]    Snehal w/o Shahaji Bedre,
                     Age 35 years, Occu. Household,
                     R/o Anand Nagar, Station Road,
                     Tq. & Dist. Ahilyanagar.                 ...RESPONDENTS.
                                                          (Resp. No. 2 Orig. Informant.)
                                                   ...
               Mr. Ajinkya Kale, Advocate i/b Talekar & Associates for Applicants
               Mr. D. J. Patil - APP for the State
               Mr. Narayan B. Narwade - Advocate for Respondent No. 2
                                                   ...
                                2                      929APPLN401.2025.odt

                           CORAM :      HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.
                           DATED :      04TH SEPTEMBER, 2026

ORAL JUDGMENT : -

1.             Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of

the learned Advocates appearing for all the parties, the Application is

heard finally.



2.             The Applicants invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court

under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS),

2023, seeking quashing of the FIR bearing Crime No. 1349 of 2024,

dated 21.12.2024, registered with Kotwali Police Station, Ahmednagar,

for the offences punishable under Sections 85, 115(2), 351(2), 352 read

with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. During

pendency of the Application, the investigation came to be completed and

a charge sheet came to be filed giving rise to RCC No. 204 of 2025. The

application was thereafter amended by the Applicants seeking quashing

of the Charge-sheet and consequential proceedings. The amended prayer

specifically encompasses the Charge-sheet pending before the learned

Trial Court.



3.             Applicant No. 1 is the Mother-in-law, Applicant No. 2 is the

Father-in-law, and Applicant No. 3 is the elder Brother-in-law of

Respondent No. 2 / Informant. The husband of Respondent No. 2 /

Informant is Accused No. 4 in the Crime, and he is not Applicant before
                              3                     929APPLN401.2025.odt

this Court.



4.            The marriage between Respondent No. 2 and Accused No.

4, Shahaji, was solemnized on 21-11-2009. A daughter was born from

the wedlock. The matrimonial relationship thereafter became strained.

The record also reflects earlier proceedings for divorce by mutual

consent, wherein Respondent No. 2 subsequently withdrew her consent

before the Family Court has been culminated in ‘no divorce’.

Subsequently, the present FIR has been registered on 21.12.2024.



5.            I have heard the learned Advocate for the applicants and

also the learned advocate appearing for Respondent No. 2 and the

learned APP. With their assistance, I have gone through the entire FIR

and the investigation papers that have been annexed to the present

Application. The learned Advocate for the Applicants has also relied

upon certain documents in support of the submissions canvassed by him

regarding the separate residence of Applicant No. 3 at Pune.



6.            The learned Counsel for the Applicants submits that the

entire matrimonial dispute is essentially between Respondent No. 2 and

her husband [Accused No. 4]. According to him, Applicant Nos.1 and 2

are elderly parents and Applicant No. 3 has been permanently residing

and working in Pune since long prior to the marriage. It is submitted
                              4                      929APPLN401.2025.odt

that the FIR contains sweeping and collective allegations against the

Applicants without attribution of any specific individual role. Particular

emphasis is placed on Applicant No. 3. The appointment letter dated

01.10.2005 issued by the Company by name, Vritti Solutions, records

that Shivaji Bedre [Applicant No.3] was appointed as Sales Manager and

was based in Pune. The Applicants have also produced the leave and

licence agreement, Electricity Bill, and Municipal Records, and

employment material to demonstrate his residence at Pune. It is

therefore submitted that his implication as brother-in-law is an

afterthought and that he was never part of the matrimonial household.

Learned counsel for the Applicants submits that the allegations

appearing in the statement of Vijay Borge, regarding a threat by the

Applicant No. 3, cannot sustain the offences alleged. It is submitted that

despite completion of the investigation, no objectionable photographs

alleged to have been used for threatening Respondent No. 2, was

recovered from any mobile phone or other device. It is therefore

contended that even the allegation against Applicant No. 3 is

unsupported by any objective material.



7.          Learned Advocate for Respondent No. 2 opposes the

Application. He argues that the FIR cannot be dissected by considering

the Applicants in isolation from the matrimonial history. According to

him, Respondent No. 2 repeatedly informed Applicant Nos. 1 and 2
                               5                      929APPLN401.2025.odt

about the conduct of the husband, she had repeatedly complained about

the husband's drinking habits, assault and harassment, but they did not

intervene and, on the contrary, have encouraged the husband. It is

submitted that such conduct itself contributed to the mental harassment

suffered by the Respondent No. 2.



8.           So far as Applicant No. 3 is concerned, it is submitted by

learned Advocate for Respondent No. 2 that the Charge sheet contains

specific material. Reliance is placed upon the statement of Vijay Borge,

wherein the Applicant No. 3, is specifically alleged to have visited his

clinic and threatened that if Respondent No. 2 did not give

unconditional consent for divorce, then the obscene photographs of

Respondent No. 2, which are available with them, will be made viral on

WhatsApp and Instagram. It is also contended that there is material

relating to the affairs of Pat Sanstha, wherein Respondent No. 2 alleges

that her signatures were forged and she was unnecessarily involved in

the offence in spite of the fact that her name was used and the actual

day-to-day affairs were looked after by her husband and Applicant No.3.



9.           He, therefore, submits that this is not a case where there

are absolutely no allegations made out in the complaint, as well as there

is no material in corroboration with the averments and allegations made

in the FIR. In light of the above, he prays that the application for all the
                                6                      929APPLN401.2025.odt

applicants be dismissed.



10.          The learned APP also submits that the statement of Vijay

Borge and other witnesses contains specific allegation against Applicant

No. 3. On a query from the Court, the learned APP fairly states that no

photographs of the nature referred to in the alleged threat were

recovered during investigation. He further argues that, taking into

consideration the entire allegations levelled by Respondent No. 2 in the

FIR and the allegations made by Respondent No. 2 being corroborated

by the independent witnesses, as well as the statement of the family

members, it is not a case which can be quashed at this stage by

exercising inherent jurisdiction of this court. The allegation requires full-

fledged trial, and the applicants will have to lead evidence to

demonstrate the truthfulness of the said allegations. He does pray that

the application be dismissed.



11.          The question, which, therefore arises before this Court, is

whether continuation of the prosecution against each of the present

applicants would be justified on the basis of the material collected

during investigation. The principles governing exercise of inherent

jurisdiction are well settled in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. v. Ch.

Bhajan Lal & Ors., 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Supreme Court

identified illustratively situations in which criminal proceedings may be
                               7                      929APPLN401.2025.odt

interfered with, where the allegations taken at face value do not

constitute an offence, and where the allegations are uncontroverted and

material collected does not disclose commission of an offence, or where

continuation of the prosecution would amount to abuse of process of the

Court.



12.          In matrimonial prosecutions, the Supreme Court has

repeatedly cautioned the Courts against permitting relatives of the

husband to be subjected to trial upon vague, omnibus and general

allegations. In the case of Dara Lakshmi Narayana & Others v. State of

Telangana & Another, (2025) 3 SCC 735, it was reiterated that mere

reference to members of the husband's family without particularized

allegations indicating active involvement, cannot ordinarily form the

basis for criminal prosecution. Even recently, in the case of Sivaraman

Nair & Others v. State of Kerala & Another, 2026 INSC 412, the Hon'ble

Apex Court has considered allegations against the Father-in-law, Mother-

in-law and Sister-in-law. The principal allegations of physical assault and

cruelty were against the husband, while allegations against the relatives

were mainly that they were present during certain incidents, the

allegations of receipt of the amount and allegations pertaining to

encouragement to the conduct of the husband. The Supreme Court in

the said case has held that the absence of any specific act of demand,

threat, or physical assault attributable to those relatives was material,
                              8                     929APPLN401.2025.odt

and accordingly, in the absence thereof, proceeded to quash the entire

prosecution against the relatives of the husband.



13.         Further, in the case of Arti Mehta & Ors. v. The State of

Madhya Pradesh & Anr., 2026 INSC 533, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has

reiterated the principles in respect of holding the entire family of the

husband as accused in the matrimonial disputes. The Court expressly

recognized the social reality that cruelty within matrimonial home may,

in an appropriate case, be perpetrated with the active cooperation of

members of the family and the extended family members. The inquiry

therefore remains allegation-specific and accused-specific. The Supreme

Court observed that wherever there are no specific and time-oriented

allegations, then in such case, the extended family members should not

be compelled to undergo the agony of a criminal trial. Tested on these

principles and the material which has been annexed to the present

proceedings, the distinction between Applicant Nos. 1 and 2 and

Applicant No. 3, on the other hand, will have to be drawn. The

gravamen of the FIR insofar as physical and mental cruelty is concerned,

is substantially directed against the husband. The allegation is that the

husband consumed liquor, abused and assaulted Respondent No. 2 and

questioned the paternity of the daughter. When the allegations turn to

Applicant Nos. 1 and 2, the substance is that Respondent No. 2

complained to them regarding the conduct of the husband, but they did
                                9                     929APPLN401.2025.odt

not pay heed to her grievances and instead encouraged him. Thereafter

the allegations repeatedly proceed collectively against the Applicant

Nos. 1 and 2 by referring the allegations as “lkljps yksd”. The FIR

narration itself demonstrates this distinction.


14.          The allegations concerning payment of Rs. 3.00 lakh is also

broadly attributed to the matrimonial family. There is no sufficiently

particularized allegation that either Applicant No. 1 or Applicant No. 2

individually demanded a particular amount on an identifiable occasion,

neither there is any allegation that they have received the amount or

they have threatened Respondent No. 2 upon non-payment or subjected

her to specific act of physical or mental cruelty.



15.          Much emphasis has been placed by Respondent No. 2 upon

the allegations that Applicant Nos. 1 and 2 were informed about the

misconduct of the husband and they did not take any coercive action. In

my view, the mere failure of the parents to intervene in a matrimonial

dispute between their adult son and daughter-in-law, in the absence of

anything more to demonstrate their active participation in acts of

cruelty, cannot, by itself, satisfy the statutory ingredients of Section 85

read with Section 86 of the BNS. To hold otherwise would effectively

impose criminal liability upon parents for not successfully controlling

the behavior of an adult married son.
                               10                       929APPLN401.2025.odt

16.          The submission that they encouraged the husband is also

unsupported by any specific words, conduct, occasion or overt act

attributable individually to Applicant No. 1 or Applicant No. 2. A general

assertion of encouragement cannot acquire the character of specific

allegation merely because the same narration is repeated by other

witnesses during investigation.



17.          The   charge-sheet     has   not   materially   improved    the

prosecution case against Applicant Nos. 1 and 2 and substantially

repeats the matrimonial history. The source of a witness’s information

does not, by itself, render the statement unacceptable. Equally, repetition

of the same allegations by several witnesses cannot cure the absence of

an identifiable criminal act attributable to a particular applicant in

respect of a particular accusation. The separate residence and age of

Applicant No. 3 are not, by themselves, grounds for quashing, nor would

it be permissible at this stage to conduct a trial upon the documents

produced by the prosecution. Those circumstances can, however, be

noticed in conjunction with the fundamental deficiency in the

prosecution case, namely absence of particularized allegations against

them. I am therefore satisfied that continuation of prosecution against

Applicant Nos. 1 and 2 would amount to compelling the parents-in-laws

to undergo criminal trial on the basis of generalized attribution

subsequently arising substantially out of their relationship with the
                              11                        929APPLN401.2025.odt

husband. Such continuation would amount to abuse of the process of

the court.



18.          The case of Applicant No. 3, however, stands on a

completely different footing. It is true that material produced by him

demonstrates that he was employed at Pune since 2005. The

appointment letter records his Pune posting from 1-10-2005. His plea of

separate residence therefore has substantial documentary support. But

separate residence is an important circumstance, and it is not an

absolute legal immunity where the prosecution material itself contains a

distinct incident allegedly involving that person. One more aspect that

requires to be placed on record is all these documents have been

submitted by the learned Advocate for Applicant No. 3 for the first time

in the present proceedings. None of these documents were ever

produced. None of these documents has been shown to have been

brought to the notice of the Investigating Officer at the time of

investigation. Thus these documents are extraneous documents outside

the charge sheet, and therefore the consideration of such extraneous

documents comes with several limitations while considering an

application for quashing under inherent jurisdiction.



19.          In addition to the above, the statement of the prosecution

witness, Vijay Borje, assumes significance in this regard. Borje states
                               12                      929APPLN401.2025.odt

that, in 2019, Applicant No. 3, Shivaji Bedre, came to his house and, in

substance, threatened that unless Respondent No. 2 gave her

unconditional consent to the divorce, her obscene photographs would be

circulated on WhatsApp and Instagram. Borje further states that he

informed the learned Advocate for Respondent No.2 about the threat,

but there was no complaint lodged at that time out of fear. This is not an

allegation against all the in-laws. Applicant No. 3 is identified by name.

The place of the alleged occurrence is identified as the house of the

witness. The purpose attributed to the threat is also identified, thereby

securing unconditional consent of Respondent No. 2 for divorce and

there is also a specific allegation that the threatened act was intended to

cause injury to the reputation of Respondent No. 2. Thus, unlike the

allegations against Applicant Nos. 1 and 2, the charge sheet contains an

individualized overt act against Applicant No. 3.



20.          The learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2 is justified in

pointing out that no photographs referred to in the alleged threat were

recovered by the Investigating Officer. The learned APP has fairly

accepted this position. That circumstance may assume considerable

importance at the stage of trial. However, the offence of criminal

intimidation does not necessarily depend upon the eventual execution of

the threatened act. At the present stage, the Court is concerned with the

allegation of the threat itself and the intention attributed to it. Whether
                                 13                    929APPLN401.2025.odt

any such photographs ever existed, whether Applicant No. 3 possessed

them, whether the statement of Borje is reliable, whether the alleged

words were actually uttered, whether the threats were in fact

communicated to Respondent No. 2, and whether all the ingredients of

the alleged offences ultimately stand proved are matters that cannot

appropriately be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 528 of the

BNSS. These are questions that will have to be answered after evidence

is led before the trial court.



21.          The Applicants have also sought to dispute the statement of

Borje by alleging that he subsequently stated that he had neither made

nor signed such a statement. Such a contention raises a direct question

regarding the credibility and authenticity of the prosecution evidence.

Acceptance of a defence at this stage would necessarily involve a mini-

trial, which is impermissible while exercising the inherent jurisdiction of

this Court. Likewise, the fact that Applicant No. 3 ordinarily resided at

Pune does not render the alleged visits to the witness at Ahmednagar

inherently impossible. Residence at Pune may discredit the allegations

only if the prosecution case itself places him continuously elsewhere at

the relevant time by unimpeachable material. The documents presently

relied upon establish his ordinary residence and employment at Pune,

but do not conclusively negate the alleged visit forming the subject

matter of Borje's statement.
                              14                     929APPLN401.2025.odt

22.         The material concerning Pat Sanstha and the alleged

obtaining of signature of Respondent No. 2 has also been referred to by

the Respondents. This Court does not propose to express any final

opinion upon that transaction, particularly when another criminal

proceedings concerning that allegation is stated to be pending. The

pendency of another criminal proceedings cannot be used either to

prove guilt in the present case or to sustain charges which otherwise do

not disclose any ingredients. The contention that the present FIR was

lodged after matrimonial proceedings and was a counterblast also

cannot by itself conclude the matter.     The sequence of proceedings

relating to divorce, maintenance, and other matters furnishes relevant

background. However, once a specific allegation independently

disclosing a prima facie offence is found in the charge-sheet, the Court

cannot terminate the prosecution merely because matrimonial litigation

preceded the FIR. This Court, therefore, finds that Applicant No. 3

cannot claim the benefit of the principle applicable to purely omnibus

implication of relatives. There is prima facie material requiring

adjudication at trial. However, it is clarified that this Court has not

expressed any opinion on the truthfulness of the allegations or upon the

ingredients of each individual penal provision. Applicant No. 3 shall be

at liberty to raise all contentions available to him at the appropriate

stage, including at the stage of consideration of charge, and the learned

Trial Court shall consider those contentions uninfluenced by the
                              15                    929APPLN401.2025.odt

observations made herein. Consequently, the application deserves to be

partly allowed. Hence, the following order:


                                   ORDER

    [i]   So far as Applicants No. 1 and 2 are concerned, the Criminal

          Application is allowed.


    [ii] FIR bearing Crime No. 1349 of 2024, dated 21.12.2024,

          registered with Kotwali Police Station, Ahmednagar, for the

          offences punishable under Sections 85, 115(2), 351(2), 352

          read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and

          Charge-sheet bearing RCC No.0000204/2025 pending with

          the learned 5th Joint Civil Judge Senior Division and

          Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmednagar filed

          pursuant to the FIR No.1349/2024, stand quashed as against

          Applicant Nos. 1 and 2, namely, Suman Bedre and Nanabhau

          Bedre.


    [iii] Insofar as Applicant No. 3, Shivaji Bedre, is concerned, the

          Criminal Application stands rejected.


    [iv] So far as Applicant No. 3 is concerned, the observations made

          hereinabove are prima facie in nature and are confined to the

          adjudication of the present application only. Further, the

          learned Trial Court shall conduct the trial independently and
                                                                16                   929APPLN401.2025.odt

                                          in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observations

                                          made in this order.


                                      [v] The Trial Court to proceed with the trial against Respondent

                                          No. 2’s husband, namely, Shahaji Bedre, and Applicant No. 3

                                          herein-Shivaji Bedre, in accordance with law, without getting

                                          influenced by the observations made by this court in the

                                          present proceedings.


                             23.             Rule is made absolute insofar as Applicant Nos. 1 and 2 are

                             concerned and stands rejected insofar as Applicant No. 3 is concerned.



                                                                       [ HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR ]
                                                                                JUDGE

                             SG Punde




Signed by: Sandeep Gulabrao Punde
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 08/09/2026 10:32:04