Bombay High Court

KISAN @ KISHAN SADASHIV KAMBLEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

Disposal: APPLICATION ALLOWED

Holding

The Court held that no prima facie case was made out against the applicant and allowed the quashment of the criminal proceedings.

Summary

Kisan Sadashiv Kamble filed an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashment of Crime No. 354 of 2024, which alleged offences under sections 85, 115(2), 352, 351(2) and 351(3) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The FIR stemmed from a dowry dispute and alleged physical and verbal abuse of the informant, who is the applicant's step‑nephew’s wife. The applicant argued that he is a distant relative living 60‑65 km away and that the FIR contains no specific overt act attributable to him, rendering the case prima facie weak. The State contended that distance does not absolve liability and that the applicant participated in the alleged hurt. Relying on precedents such as Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar, the Court held that no prima facie case exists against the applicant and that proceeding would serve no useful purpose. Consequently, the application for quashment was allowed, and the criminal proceedings against the applicant were dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the FIR discloses a prima facie case against the applicant under the cited sections of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita.
Whether the High Court can quash the criminal proceeding under Section 482 of the CrPC in the absence of specific allegations against the applicant.
Whether the applicant's status as a distant relative and his residence away from the alleged incident preclude criminal liability.

Legislation cited

Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 115(2), 351(2), 351(3), 352, 85

Subjects

dowry harassment
quashment
Section 482 CrPC
Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita
prima facie case
distant relative
criminal procedure

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:39777-DB
APPLN.4661.2024.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4661 OF 2024

Kisan @ Kishan Sadashiv Kamble
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra and another

Ms. Rashmi S. Kulkarni, Advocate for applicant
Mr. S. B. Narwade, APP for Respondent-State
Mr. V. G. Kodale, Advocate for Respondent No. 2

CORAM : R.M. JOSHI, J
DATE : AUGUST 28, 2026

P. C. :

1. By this application filed under section 482 of Code of Criminal

Procedure, the applicant seeks quashment of the Crime No. 354 of 2024

registered with the Kopargaon Police Station, District Ahmednagar for the

offence punishable under sections 85, 115(2), 352, 351(2) and 351(3) of

Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’). Upon completion of the

investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that the present applicant is the

paternal grand-uncle-in-law of Respondent-2 (Informant). The accused no. 2

i.e. Shivaji Bhausaheb Kamble is the step brother of the present applicant.

Marriage between the informant/Respondent No. 2 and Tejas Shivaji

Kamble i.e. Accused no. 1 was solemnised on 09.07.2023. Two months after

the marriage, the in-laws allegedly began harassing the informant,

Page 1 of 4
APPLN.4661.2024.odt

demanding dowry for a grand wedding, gold, and Rs. 20 lakhs to purchase a

flat in Pune. On 05.01.2024, when the informant discovered her husband’s

extra-marital affair in Pune, she was physically assaulted, which instigating

her to lodge the complaint in Bharti Vidyapeeth Police Station, Pune. Later,

when she attempted to return to her matrimonial home at Mhaisgaon,

Taluka Rahuri, her in-laws collectively quarreled with her, reiterated the

demand for Rs. 20 lakhs and upon her refusal subjected her to physical and

verbal abuse and forcibly ejected her from the house. When mediation by

relatives and counselling at the Bharosa Cell in Ahmednagar failed because

the in-laws initially agreed but subsequently refused to take her back, the

present crime came to be registered.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that even if the

allegations in the First Information Report are taken at face value, they fail

to disclose any prima facie offence or specific overt act attributed to the

applicant. The present applicant is merely a distant relative who resides

separately in Ahmednagar which was approximately 60 to 65 km away from

the matrimonial home, whereas informant and accused no. 1 resided in

Pune. The counsel highlighted that the First Information Report relies

entirely on vague and omnibus allegations aimed at dragging relatives into

personal dispute. It further argued that the applicant is a distant relative of

the informant, no prima facie case is made out against him, the question of

Page 2 of 4
APPLN.4661.2024.odt

proceeding against the applicant pursuant to the filing of the report and

investigation thereof does not arise. She relied on following judgments of

Hon’ble Supreme Court-

1. Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and Others v.s State of Bihar is Criminal
Appeal No. 195 of 2022, (2022) 3 SCC 329
2.Geeta Mehrotra v.s State of U.P. Reported in (2012) 10 SCC,
3. Preeti Gupta v.s State of Jharkhand reported in (2010) 7 SCC 667,
4. G. V. Rao v.s L.H. V. Prasad and others (2000) 3 SCC 693
5. Shrikrushna v.s State of Maharashtra (2018) ALLMR (Cri)2148
6. Vikas v.s State of Maharashtra (2017) ALLMR(Cri) 846
7. Pramod Uttam Shinde and ors v.s State of Maharashtra (2015) ALLMT
(Cri)4232
8. Sudhir Rangrao Patil v.s State of Maharashtra MANU/MH/2484/2017
9. Raosaheb v.s State of Maharashtra MANU/MH/2491/2017

4. The learned APP and counsel for Respondent No. 2 opposed the

application. It submits that the First Information Report shows a prima facie

case of physical and mental harassment, being made out. It is contended

that the applicant is residing 60-65 km away in Ahmednagar does not

automatically absolve the present applicant from the offence alleged.

Furthermore, learned counsel for the informant/respondent no. 2 submits

that the present applicant is also involved in causing voluntary hurt to the

informant and therefore, the proceedings against him would be

maintainable.

Page 3 of 4
APPLN.4661.2024.odt

5. Perusal of the documents shows that the present applicant is a

distant relative of the Informant and lives separately. Further, allegations in

the First Information Report are made simply because the applicant is a

family relative. There are no specific allegations against the present

applicant regarding a demand of dowry or cruelty rather, allegations in FIR

are prima facie against the co-accused. However, once the offence

punishable under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code/ 85 of BNS is not

attracted against the present applicant and the said offence is non-

cognizable in nature, the question of proceeding against the applicant

pursuant to the filing of the report and investigation thereof does not arise.

In view of the fact that the applicant is a distant relative living separately,

no prima facie offence is made out against the present applicant and no

fruitful purpose would be served by continuing the criminal proceedings

against the present applicant as held in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and

others v.s State of Bihar, (2022) 3 SCC 329.

6. Hence, present application stands allowed in terms of prayer

clause ‘B’.

(R. M. JOSHI, J.)
Malani

Page 4 of 4

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…