VIROCHAN PRALHAD BHARTI AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

2026:BHC-AUG:42418-DB




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD
                            CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4803 OF 2024
           1. Virochan s/o Pralhad Bharti
           2. Sandya w/o Pralhad Bharti
           3. Pralhad s/o Ram Bharti
           4. Snehal w/o Avinash Giri
           5. Archana w/o Uday Giri
           6. Uday s/o Pandurang Giri                             ...Applicants
                 VERSUS
           1.    The State of Maharashtra
           2.    Madhuri w/o Virochan Bharti                      ...Respondents
                                                 ...
           Mr. V. D. Salunkhe, Advocate for Applicants
           Mr. S. P Joshi, 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.           After hearing Learned Counsel for both sides and when this Court

           has shown disinclination to grant relief to Applicant No.1 / husband, learned

           Counsel for the Applicants, on instructions, seeks withdrawal of the

           Application qua Applicant No. 1.


           2.           Application stands dismissed qua Applicant No. 1 as withdrawn.


           3.           This Application filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagrik

           Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 the present Applicants seek quashment of First

           Information Report in Crime No. 0439 of 2024 dated 27.10.2024 registered

           with Vimantal Police Station, District Nanded for offences punishable under


           APPLN-4803-2024.odt                                                     1 of 5
Sections 323, 498-A, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code

(for short “IPC”) as against the Applicants.


4.          The case of the prosecution is that the informant, Dr. Madhuri

Bharati, married Virochan Pralhad Bharati on April 14, 2012, in Nanded,

where her parents spent approximately ₹20 Lakhs on marriage expenses,

alongside providing ₹10 Lakhs as cash dowry, ₹8 Lakhs for household

amenities, and gold jewelry. The couple has a 9-year-old son out of the

wedlock. The informant was employed as an Assistant Professor at a dental

college from 2014 to 2019, during which period her in-laws, relatives, and

husband continuously subjected her to systemic taunts, body shaming, and

domestic cruelty regarding her appearance and domestic chores.


5.          The FIR alleges that from 24.06.2018 to 29.09.2021, the husband

of the informant, father-in-law, mother-in-law, sister-in-law, and maternal in-

laws subjected her to physical beatings, verbal abuse, and mental torture.

Specific allegations state that her husband frequently assaulted her under the

influence of alcohol, forcibly stripped off her personal jewelry, and alongside

the co-accused, demanded an additional sum of ₹10 Lakhs from her parents

to purchase a residential plot. Following an unsuccessful intervention by the

father of the informant and community elders on 10.09.2021, the accused

persons physically assaulted the informant on 29.09.2021, and unlawfully

expelled her along with her minor son from the matrimonial home due to

APPLN-4803-2024.odt                                                       2 of 5
non-payment of the illegal dowry demand.


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

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

FIR and it is based on false averments and unsustainable grounds, prima-facie

no case is made out even to register the offence. There are different criminal

proceedings filed by the Informant and Applicant No.1 against each other

which are pending and thereafter the Informant left the matrimonial house

and lodged FIR after 3 years as an afterthought. He further submits that when

the Applicant No.1 lost the job, Informant started to felt embarrassed and

thereafter the quarrels started. He submits that complaint raising allegations

of demand of money for purchasing the house are unfounded since the

Applicants have a big house and the Applicant Nos. 3 and 5 are having a well

to do background. Further, the Learned Counsel for the Applicants submits

that the Informant herself discloses that for no reason the other family

members and relatives are roped into the crime. There are no specific

allegations attributable to the present Applicant Nos. 2-6 to constitute any

offence, moreover, they are residing separately from the matrimonial home of

the Informant. Therefore, he prays this court to quash the FIR. 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-4803-2024.odt                                                      3 of 5
7.           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 498-A of

the IPC being made out. It is further submitted that the FIR does not contain

mere general statements, but explicitly details specific acts of harassment,

physical assault. It is admitted that the Applicant Nos. 4-6 were residing

separately, however it is contended that the said fact does not automatically

absolve them from the offence committed.


8.           Bare perusal of the record shows that Applicant Nos. 2 to 6 are

residing separately distant from the matrimonial home and moreover, there

are no 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 assertions

without concrete details regarding time, place, and individual participation.

Furthermore, previous complaints raised by the Informant do not indicate

occurrence of any incident insofar as Applicant Nos. 2 to 6 are concerned. 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.


9.           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

APPLN-4803-2024.odt                                                          4 of 5
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. On

the same point, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment in the case of

Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar, (2022) 6 SCC 599, while referring to K

Subba Rao v. State of Telangana, (2018) 14 SCC 452 observed thus:


        “16. Recently, in K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana 11, it was
        also observed that: (SCC p. 454, para 6)

        "6. ... The courts should be careful in proceeding against the
        distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes
        and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be
        roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific
        instances of their involvement in the crime are made out."
                                        (emphasis supplied)


             In the facts of the case, this Court is of the view that the

allegations made in the FIR against the present Applicant Nos. 2 to 6 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 partly allowed qua Applicant

Nos. 2 to 6, in terms of prayer clause ‘B’.



                                          `       (R. M. JOSHI, J.)
Umesh



APPLN-4803-2024.odt                                                         5 of 5