GAJANAN DASHRATH RATHOD AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

2026:BHC-AUG:42417-DB




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                            CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4289 OF 2023

           1. Gajanan Dashrath Rathod
           2. Dashrath Chaju Rathod
           3. Shobha Dashrath Rathod
           4. Rajesh Dashrath Rathod
           5. Vinod Dashrath Rathod                                 ...Applicants

                 VERSUS

           1.The State of Maharashtra
           2.XYZ                                            ...Respondents
                                                 ...
           Mr. B. S. Chondhekar, Advocate for Applicants
           Mr.N. R. Dayama, APP for Respondent – State
           Mr. S. H. Jogdand h/f Mr. S. S. Gangakhedkar, Advocate for Respondent No. 2
                                                 ...

                                        CORAM          : R. M. JOSHI, J.
                                        DATE           :10th SEPTEMBER, 2026


           PER COURT :-

           1.           Application of Applicant No. 1 – husband is already withdrawn as

           recorded by order dated 05.12.2023.


           2.           This Application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

           Procedure, 1973 the present Applicants seek quashment of First Information

           Report in Crime No. 04 of 2023 dated 02.01.2023 registered with Aundha

           Nagnath Police Station, District Hingoli for offences punishable under

           Sections 323, 354, 498-A, 504, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for

           short “IPC”) as against the Applicants and set aside the order taking

           APPLN-4289-2023.odt                                                      1 of 5
cognizance dated 04.08.2023 passed by Learned Judicial Magistrate First

Class, Aundha Nagnath in R. C. C. No. 139/2023.


3.          The case of the prosecution is that the Informant married

Gajanan Dashrath Rathod on 15.03.2011, according to religious rites and

customs at Mohari, and they have two sons out of the wedlock. The Informant

lives with her parents in Brahmanwada, earning a living through labor and

household work. The Informant lived peacefully with her husband and in-laws

for only about one year after the marriage. Despite multiple mediation

attempts arranged by her parents through local community members, as well

as formal conciliation proceedings at the Women's Vigilance Cell under the

Office of the Superintendent of Police, Hingoli, no settlement could be

reached, leading her to lodge this First Information Report. The Informant

alleges that her husband and in-laws subjected her to ongoing physical and

mental torture, verbal abuse, starvation, and unlawful expulsion from the

matrimonial home due to unmet demands for Rs. 3,00000/- to purchase a

tractor, as well as made derogatory remarks regarding her appearance and

domestic skills. She further alleges that her brother-in-law, Vinod Dashrath

Rathod (Applicant No. 5 in the present Application), repeatedly molested her

with bad intentions when she was left alone at home. When she reported this

conduct to her husband and parents-in-law, they suppressed the matter to

preserve family dignity and threatened her with death. Additionally, she


APPLN-4289-2023.odt                                                    2 of 5
alleges a specific incident of physical assault by her husband while working at

a sugarcane farm in Purna Shivar, which necessitated her father and another

individual to intervene and rescue her.


4.          Learned Counsel for the Applicants states that the entire family

has been falsely implicated by the Respondent No.2/Informant in the present

FIR, prima-facie no case is made out even to register the offence. There are no

specific allegations attributable to the present Applicant Nos. 2 to 5 to

constitute any offence, moreover, they are residing separately from the

matrimonial home of the Informant. Applicant Nos. 2 and 3 resided with the

Informant and Applicant No.1 only for two years in a joint family, thereafter

they resided separately. As far as the Applicant Nos. 4 and 5 are concerned,

they reside in different cities for the purpose of education away from the

matrimonial home, and never resided with the Informant at any point in time.

Apart from allegations being vague and absence of specific overt acts, there is

unexplainable delay in lodging of FIR. Insofar as the allegations under Section

354 of IPC against the Applicant No. 5 are concerned, they are completely

false, without any basis and are only made to harass the Applicants. He

submits that the Chargesheet came to be filed without any material to

implicate the Applicants. To support his contentions, he places reliance on

Apex Court’s ruling in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992

(supp) (1) SCC 335.


APPLN-4289-2023.odt                                                       3 of 5
5.          Learned APP and Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2 submit

that the application for quashing deserves to be dismissed, as the FIR clearly

shows prima facie case of cruelty and dowry demands under Section 498A of

the IPC being made out. Moreover, the allegations of molestation made

against the Applicant No. 5 are serious in nature, therefore Application needs

to be dismissed. It is submitted that the Applicant Nos. 2 and 3 were residing

in matrimonial home for two years causing cruelty to the Informant. Its is

further submitted that even if Applicant Nos. 4 and 5 were not residing in the

same house, the said fact does not automatically absolve them from the

offence committed.


6.          It is pertinent to note that the allegations in the FIR is that after

one year of marriage, demand of money started, however, there are no

particulars, much less, any specific allegation against Applicant Nos. 2 to 5.

Though there is allegation against Applicant No. 5 stating that he misbehaved

with the Informant, the said allegation seems as vague as possible.


7.          Moreover, bare perusal of the record shows that Applicant Nos. 2

to 6 are residing separately distant from the matrimonial home apart from

absence of specific allegations attributable to the said Applicants. It is well-

settled that a criminal prosecution under Section 498A of the IPC cannot be

sustained against family members on the basis of general and uncorroborated



APPLN-4289-2023.odt                                                         4 of 5
assertions without concrete details regarding time, place, and individual

participation. In the absence of evidence demonstrating active involvement in

day-to-day domestic affairs, implicating relatives who reside separately merely

by virtue of their relationship constitutes an abuse of the process of law.


8.             At this stage, it would be relevant to refer to the judgments of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P., (2012) 10

SCC 741, Preeti Gupta & Anr. v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 667, which

states that relatives which are residing separately cannot be forced to face

trial under Section 498-A IPC based on vague and sweeping allegations.


9.             Therefore, having considered the facts and material placed before

the Court, this Court is of the view that the allegations made in the FIR

against the present Applicant Nos. 2 to 5 are vague and lack specific overt acts

and hence FIR liable to be quashed. On the basis of such allegations, if the

Applicants are called upon to undergo rigors of trial, it would lead to

miscarriage of Justice.


10.            In view of above, application stands allowed qua Applicant Nos. 2

to 5, in terms of prayer clause ‘B’ and ‘B1’.



           `                                         (R. M. JOSHI, J.)

Umesh




APPLN-4289-2023.odt                                                           5 of 5