Bombay High Court
CHANDRASHEKHAR SHALIGRAM CHAUDHARI AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
- Bench
- RAJNISH R VYAS
Holding
The Court quashed the FIR against the father‑in‑law, mother‑in‑law, sister‑in‑law and brother‑in‑law due to vague allegations and unexplained delay, but allowed the trial against the husband to proceed.
Summary
The State filed an FIR in 2022 alleging dowry harassment, assault, and intimidation under sections 498‑A, 323, 504, 506 and 34 IPC against a husband, his parents, sister‑in‑law and brother‑in‑law, based on a complaint by the wife. The accused filed a criminal application seeking quash of the FIR, arguing that the allegations were vague, the FIR was lodged after an unexplained delay (the alleged abuse began in 2018), and that the case was being used to pressure them. The State contended that an independent witness corroborated the complainant’s version and that the matter should be tried. The Court examined the delay, the lack of specific details in both the FIR and the witness statement, and held that the prosecution against the father‑in‑law, mother‑in‑law, sister‑in‑law and brother‑in‑law could not be sustained. Accordingly, the application was partly allowed: the petition was withdrawn for the husband, the FIR was quashed for the other four accused, but the trial against the husband was ordered to continue.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR and subsequent prosecution can be quashed on the ground of undue delay and vague, non‑specific allegations.
- Whether the presence of an independent witness’s statement, though vague, suffices to sustain the prosecution.
- Whether the Court may exercise its powers under Section 482 CrPC to dismiss charges against co‑accused in the interest of justice.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 125, 482
- Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 323, 34, 498-A, 504, 506
- Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act
Subjects
- dowry harassment
- section 498-A
- quash of FIR
- delay in prosecution
- Section 482 CrPC
- domestic violence
- Indian Penal Code
- criminal procedure
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:15156-DB
928-APPLN-4400-23.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4400 OF 2023
1. Chandrashekhar Shaligram Chaudhari (Husband)
Age: 42 Years, Occu: Agra.
2. Shaligram Gambhir Chaudhari (Father in Law)
Age: 67 Years, Occu: Agril.
3. Suman Shaligram Chaudhari (Mother in Law)
Age: 65 Years, Occu: Household,
All R/o. Raypur, TaI. Raver,
Dist. Jalgaon
4. Swati Rupesh Patil (Sister in Law)
Age: 31 Years, Occu: Service
5. Rupesh Prakash Patil (Husband of Sister in Law)
Age: 34 Years, Occu: Service
Both R/o. Flat No.7-A, Second Floor,
Shrikrishna Icon. Ravet, Pune. ..APPLICANT
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through its Muktainagar, Police Station,
Tal. Muktainagar, Dist. Jalgaon.
2. Vasundhara Chandrashekhar Chaudhari
Age: 33 Years, Occu: Household,
R/o. At present Uchanda, Tal. Muktainagar,
Dist. Jalgaon. ..RESPONDENTS
....
Mr. V.B. Patil, Advocate for applicants
Mr. S.N. Morampalle, A.P.P. for respondent no.1 - State
....
CORAM : RAJNISH R. VYAS, J.
DATE : 08th APRIL, 2026
1 / 8
928-APPLN-4400-23.odt
PER COURT :
. This is an application at the instance of all the accused, challenging
the registration of F.I.R., final report, order taking cognizance and the
proceedings. The F.I.R. No.373/2022 dated 18th November, 2022 was
registered with Muktainagar Police Station, Dist.Jalgaon for offences
punishable under section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal
Code at the behest of Respondent No.2..
2. At the outset, learned counsel for the applicants, on instructions,
states that he will not press the application for Applicant No.1 / husband and
be permitted to withdraw the same.
3. Criminal application as regards Applicant No.1 / Chandrashekhar
Shaligram Chaudhari is disposed of as withdrawn.
4. Challenging the F.I.R. and consequent initiation of prosecution,
learned counsel for the applicants has contended that remaining applicants
are father-in-law, mother-in-law, sister-in-law and husband of sister-in-law of
Respondent No.2 / informant respectively, against whom only vague and
general allegations are made by Respondent No.2. He submitted that
considering the fact that there is delay in lodging the F.I.R. and prior to filing
of same several proceedings were initiated, it can be said that criminal law
2 / 8
928-APPLN-4400-23.odt
was set in motion not to punish the guilt but to pressurize the applicants. He,
therefore, prayed for allowing the application.
5. Per contra, learned A.P.P. submitted that there is statement of
independent witness, who supports the version advanced by Respondent
No.2, and therefore, credibility of the said witness can only be tested during
the course of trial. He requested that commenting anything on the version of
the independent witness would amount to conducting mini trial, which is not
at all permissible. He, therefore, prayed for rejection of the application.
6. None appeared for Respondent No.2, though served.
7. With the help of respective counsels, I have gone through the
record of the case and have given my thoughtful consideration to the
arguments advanced.
8. The F.I.R. is lodged at the behest of Respondent No.2, who has
alleged that on 01st January, 2011 her marriage was solemnized with Accused
No.1 as per rites and ceremonies. Her parents had given streedhan in the
form of Rs.7 lakhs cash and 20 tola gold. She has stated that after marriage,
she started residing with the accused persons. Respondent No.2 was blessed
with a child.
3 / 8
928-APPLN-4400-23.odt
9. According to the F.I.R., initially for six months she was treated
properly, but thereafter on trifle reasons, in-laws used to pass comment by
saying that she does not know how to work and they could have secured more
dowry. When the informant had narrated the said incident to her parents and
brother, they asked her to keep patience. Respondent No.2, therefore,
ignored the aforesaid incidence.
10. On 18th February, 2022 when the child was born, Respondent No.2
thought that accused persons would mend their ways, but it did not happen.
All the accused persons by sitting together used to discuss and direct
Respondent No.2 to perform various works at the same time. They also used
to pass comment that the informant is slow at work and does not know how
to complete the work. On that count she was subjected to mental harassment.
11. It was also alleged in the F.I.R. that the accused persons used to
ask Respondent No.2 to call her parents and bring amount of Rs.25 lakhs for
purchasing agricultural field. Again Respondent No.2 informed the aforesaid
fact to her parents, who ignored it by advancing the reason that accused
persons might not be serious about it. Respondent No.2 was further advised
by her parents to live life with compromising attitude. She further alleged
that on trifle reasons, on different occasions, quarrels took place between
them.
4 / 8
928-APPLN-4400-23.odt
12. According to the F.I.R. on 27th September, 2018 she was driven out
of the house by the accused persons and in spite of it accused persons used to
visit the house of parents of Respondent No.2 and abuse her and demand
custody of the child.
13. Respondent No.2 / informant alleged that on 30 th October, 2022
when she was at her parent’s house, a meeting was arranged for settling the
matter, at which time the husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law told that
they would not permit Respondent No.2 to cohabit and had threatened that
custody of the child would be taken forcibly. When Respondent No.2
demanded the original documents pertaining to her education and gold
ornaments of 20 tola, she was abused by her husband. The father-in-law and
mother-in-law had specifically told her that they would not permit her to
reside and also demanded Rs.25 lakhs for purchasing agricultural field. It
was alleged that accused persons not only demanded custody of the child, but
had also asked Respondent No.2 to agree for divorce. It was also alleged that
on one occasion, the husband of Respondent No.2 tried to take forcible
custody of the child, but since alarm was raised and due to intervention of
one Kishor Chintaman Patil, the matter was settled. The accused persons had
threatened Respondent No.2 and her brother to kill.
14. It is in this background, the criminal law was set in motion and
investigation was carried out, which resulted into filing of final report. As
5 / 8
928-APPLN-4400-23.odt
pointed out by learned counsel for the applicants, Respondent No.2 has filed
proceeding under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,
bearing No. 18 of 2019 before the jurisdictional Court. Respondent No.2 has
also filed proceeding under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure i.e.
Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 8 of 2022 before the jurisdictional
Magistrate. He brought to my notice the fact that even divorce proceeding
bearing no. 137 of 2022 dated 29th March, 2022 was filed by Respondent
No.2 against the husband before the competent Court of law. Finally he
submitted that even the proceedings in the year 2023 under Hindu Adoption
and Maintenance Act praying for maintenance was also filed against the
husband by the wife. According to him, if the aforesaid events are taken into
consideration in the light of the fact that the F.I.R. was lodged on 18 th
November, 2022, whereas Respondent No.2 is residing separately since 27 th
September, 2018, it would be clear that criminal law was misused.
15. There is a prima facie strength in the argument made by learned
counsel for the applicants. It is on 27 th September, 2018 Respondent No.2
was driven out of the house, whereas the F.I.R. was lodged on 18 th November,
2022. Though delay in all cases would not be fatal for prosecution, but the
fact remains that delay is unexplained and in between the said period various
proceedings are filed by the wife against the husband. It is thus necessary to
consider the delay in the aforesaid background and in the light of allegations
6 / 8
928-APPLN-4400-23.odt
made in the final report. Perusal of the allegations made in the F.I.R. and
final report would reveal that it is alleged by the informant that present
applicants used to harass her mentally and physically on trifle reasons and
thereafter demanded Rs.25 Lakhs for purchasing agricultural field. The
material on record clearly shows that the said allegations are bereft of any
specific details regarding time, period, etc. General and omnibus allegations
would not be enough to attract the ingredients of offences registered.
16. It is worth noting that the other allegations are against the
husband, whose application is already not pressed by the counsel. Therefore,
commenting anything upon the role played by the husband would not be
necessary since the proceedings are still pending against him.
17. Contention of learned A.P.P. that there is independent witness,
who corroborate the version of Respondent No.2, and therefore, the
proceedings may not be quashed, cannot be taken into consideration for the
reason that the witness viz. Jitendra Himmatrao More though has stated
about ill-treatment, but fact remains that in the said statement also omnibus,
general and vague allegations are made, so far present applicants are
concerned. His next contention that the quality of statement of said witness
can be tested during the course of trial, suffice it to say that prima facie the
statement of said witness fails to make out any case against the present
7 / 8
928-APPLN-4400-23.odt
applicants. The powers under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure are
to be exercised in the interest of justice. Allowing the prosecution to proceed
against the present applicants in the aforesaid background would not be in
the interest of justice. In that view of the matter, following order is passed :-
ORDER
(I) Criminal application is partly allowed.
(II) Criminal application is disposed of as withdrawn so far as
Applicant No.1 / Chandrashekhar Shaligram Chaudhari is
concerned.
(III) Criminal application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses
[B], [B-1] and [C-2] qua, Applicant No.2 / Shaligram
Gambhir Chaudhari, Applicant No.3 / Suman Shaligram
Chaudhari, Applicant No. 4 / Swati Rupesh Patil and
Applicant No. 5 / Rupesh Prakash Patil.
(IV) Trial be proceeded against Applicant No.1 / Chandrashekhar
Shaligram Chaudhari
( RAJNISH R. VYAS, J. )
SSD
8 / 8
Checking your session…