VINAYAK SAMBHAJI SONKAMBLE AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

2026:BHC-AUG:46459-DB
                                                                       cri.appln.4405.2024.odt



                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                             CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4405/2024

          1.Vinayak S/o Sambhaji Sonkamble (Husband)
          2. Sambhaji S/o Gyanoji Sonkamble (Father-in-law)
          3. Anil S/o Sambhaji Sonkamble (Brother-in-law)
          4. Sunil S/o Sambhaji Sonkamble (Brother-in-law)
          5. Shila S/o Anil Sonkamble (Sister-in-law)
          6. Kanchan W/o Sunil Sonkamble (Sister-in-law)
          7. Ushabai @ Janabai Wd/o Ashok Kamble
          8. Amrapali W/o Govardhan Bansode                          ...Applicants

                    Versus

          1.The State of Maharashtra
          2. Shila W/o Vinayak Sonkamble                             ...Respondents

                                                ...
          Mr. G. K. Muneshwar, Advocate for Applicants
          Mr. M. M. Parghane, Advocate for Respondent No. 2
          Mr. S. P. Joshi, APP for Respondent - State
                                                ...

                                                           CORAM   : R.M. JOSHI, J
                                                           DATE    : SEPTEMBER 29, 2026

          P. C. :

          1.             At the outset, it must be recorded that the application qua

          Applicant No. 1 to 6 stood disposed of as withdrawn by this Court’s order

          dated 5th February 2025.



          2.             By this application, Applicant Nos. 7 and 8 seek quashment of

          First Information Report bearing Crime No. 256/ 2023, registered at

          Nanded Rural Police Station District Nanded for offences punishable under


                                             Page 1 of 5
                                                            cri.appln.4405.2024.odt



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

Code, and the subsequent proceedings pending before the learned Civil

Judge Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate First Class in RCC No. 723 of

2023, including the order issuing summons dated 07.07.2023.


3.          According to the prosecution, Shilpa Vinayak Sonkamble lodged

a First Information Report against her in-laws. The marriage between the

informant and Applicant No. 1 was solemnized on 02.02.2020, as per

Buddhist rituals, and a male child was born from the wedlock. At the time of

the wedding, the parents of the informant gifted Rs. 5 Lakh, a 5-gram gold

ring, and household articles. After a brief initial period of peaceful

cohabitation, the husband and co-accused began subjecting her to physical

assault, starvation, verbal abuse regarding her complexion, and torture,

including inflicting burn injuries with incense sticks. It is contended that

applicants demanded an additional Rs. 5 Lakh to purchase a car, as well as

the transfer of the informant's fathers’ agricultural land and house property.

On 14.08.2020, the informant left her matrimonial home and started living

with her parents at Gopal Chawadi. Later, on 20.09.2022, the applicant no.1

visited the parental home of the informant. Although Applicant No. 1

wanted to take Respondent No. 2 for cohabitation, he had no residential

house of his own and instead demanded that the second floor of the

informant's parents' residence be transferred to his name. He subsequently



                                  Page 2 of 5
                                                           cri.appln.4405.2024.odt



assaulted the informant with kicks again. On 14.03.2022, Applicant No. 1

had approached the Women Assistance Cell at the Police Superintendent’s

Office in Nanded regarding cohabitation. Thereafter a letter was received by

the informant, and a present FIR came to be filed.


4.          The counsel for the applicants submits that allegations in FIR

against the applicants are completely vague, and omnibus. It is contended

that the charge sheet relies solely on the statements of interested witnesses

without any corroborative evidence, rendering the chances of conviction

bleak. Furthermore, the allegations regarding the illegal demands of Rs. 5

lakhs agricultural land, and property are completely unspecific, and

omnibus. It is contended that the complaint is false, concocted and filed out

of personal vendetta.   It is further submitted that the    Applicant No. 1

(husband) had previously approached the Women Assistance Cell, S.P.

Office, Nanded on 14.03.2022, seeking cohabitation, but the informant

refused and belatedly lodged this FIR on 12.03.2023. Additionally, applicant

no. 7 is 64 yrs and applicant no. 8 are sister-in-laws who are residing

separately and they have no concern with the informant. Counsel for

applicants relies upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of

State of Haryana v.s Bhajan Lal, (1992) SCC (cri) 426.


5.          The Learned APP and counsel for the informant strongly

opposed granting any relief to applicant nos. 7 and 8. It is contended that

                                  Page 3 of 5
                                                             cri.appln.4405.2024.odt



the allegations in the FIR disclose a prima facie case of cognizable offences.

It is submitted that the allegations in the FIR contain specific, continuous

instances of physical assault and mental harassment, which include

inflicting burn injuries with incense sticks, starvation, verbal abuse, and a

demand of dowry of Rs. 5 lakhs for a car and the transfer of the informant’s

father’s property i.e., agricultural land and the second floor of the house.

Additionally, the subsequent assault on 20.09.2022 at her parental home

demonstrates an ongoing course of criminal conduct. It is further contended

that the question of whether witnesses are “interested” is a matter for the

appreciation of evidence before the trial court. It is contended that applicant

nos. 7 and 8 cannot be absolved on the ground of age and separate

residence, as the allegations in the FIR clearly indicate their active

involvement in subjecting the informant to cruelty. The delay in lodging the

FIR is well explained by the pre-litigation counseling and proceedings before

the Women Assistance Cell, Nanded, while the informant's refusal to cohabit

was entirely justified due to genuine threats to her life.


6.           Perusal of the record and considering the rival submissions of

both sides, this Court finds that the allegations in the FIR against applicant

nos. 7 and 8 are entirely omnibus and vague, lacking any indication of

active participation in the alleged harassment and demand for dowry.

Furthermore, applicant nos. 7 and 8 are distant relatives residing separately.



                                    Page 4 of 5
                                                             cri.appln.4405.2024.odt



It is a settled position of law that relatives residing separately cannot be

forced to face trial based on vague and omnibus allegations, as per the

principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Geeta Mehrotra v.

State of UP (2012) 10 SCC 741 and Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar

(2022) 6 SCC 599. The applicants have been unnecessarily roped into the

proceedings without establishing any direct involvement in the couple's

matrimonial life. The statements of the witnesses do not disclose any

specific demands of dowry or physical harm attributed to them. Therefore,

continuing criminal proceedings against applicant nos. 7 and 8 would

constitute a clear abuse of the judicial process, satisfying the parameters laid

down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (supra).


7.            In view of the above, application is allowed in terms of prayer

clause ‘C’.



                                                      (R. M. JOSHI, J.)
Malani




                                   Page 5 of 5