PRITAM MOHAN RATHOD AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

2026:BHC-AUG:23718-DB
                                                                              920.odt


               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                          BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                   920 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4832 OF 2024

                          Pritam Mohan Rathod And Others
                                     VERSUS
                       The State Of Maharashtra And Another
                                         …..
          Mr. Dhawale Bhushan S, Advocate for Applicants
          Ms. Anuradha S. Mantri, APP for Respondent No.1 – State
          Mr. N. Y. Kingaonkar, Advocate for Respondent No.2
                                         …..
                                       CORAM : NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.
                                        DATE       :    17.06.2026


          PER COURT :

          1.    This is an Application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya
          Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as
          ‘BNSS’)    for   quashing   FIR   No.0328/2024,      registered    with
          Jawaharnagar Police Station, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, Taluka
          and District – Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, for the offences
          punishable under Sections 85, 115(2), 352, 351(2), 351(3), 351(4)
          and Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter
          referred to as ‘BNS’) and consequential charge-sheet bearing
          No.168/2025 pending with the learned Judicial Magistrate, First
          Class,    Chhatrapati   Sambhajinagar,       and   the   order    taking
          cognizance and issuance of process by the learned Trial Court.

          2.    The aforesaid crime and criminal proceedings are registered
          on the report lodged by Respondent No.2, wife of Applicant No.1
          and daughter-in-law of Applicant Nos.2 and 3, who are the father-
          in-law and mother-in-law, respectively of Respondent No.2.

                                            1
                                                               920.odt


Respondent No.2 married to Applicant No.1 in the year 2021. After
the marriage, she went to her matrimonial home at Mumbai. The
Applicants used to tell her that, she was educated and she can do a
job and earn money. In January – 2022, Respondent No.2 and
Applicant - husband came to Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar for
livelihood. The husband started harassing the Informant. The
Applicants used to telephonically instigate the husband, and due to
that, the husband used to beat and harass her. The harassment
continued for a substantial period. The Informant gave birth to one
baby girl from her husband. Eventually, the report was lodged, as
there was no improvement in the behaviour of the Applicants.

3.   The order dated 11.12.2024 shows that, the learned Advocate
for the Applicants had withdrawn the Application to the extent of
Applicant No.1 - husband.

4.   It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Applicants
that, general and vague allegations are levelled against the
Applicants by the Informant. Even accepting the FIR as it is, the
allegations fall short of attracting the offence against the
Applicants, who were admittedly residing separately. In the report,
it is stated by the Informant that, the Applicants used to
telephonically instigate the husband, which resulted in the
harassment and on the other hand in the supplementary
statement, it is stated by the Informant that, the Applicants
stopped talking to her. Except the vague and general allegations,
there is no material to connect the Applicants with the crime. He
submits that, the Application be allowed to the extent of Applicant
Nos.2 and 3.



                                 2
                                                               920.odt


5.   The Application is opposed by the learned Advocate for
Respondent No.2. He submits that, the FIR shows the allegations
against the in-laws that, they used to telephonically instigate the
husband, who used to cause harassment to the Informant. The
allegations against Applicant Nos.2 and 3 are specific, and
therefore they should face the trial. It is submitted that, the
Application be rejected.


6.   It is submitted by the learned APP for Respondent No.1 –
State that, there are statements of the relatives of the Informant,
which support the case of prosecution, and therefore the
Application may be rejected.


7.   With the assistance of the learned Advocates for the parties,
perused the papers on record. Undisputedly, for few months, the
Informant resided at New Mumbai with her husband and in-laws.
In the FIR and supplementary statement of the first Informant,
there are no allegations of harassment by the in-laws to her during
her stay with them at Mumbai. The FIR and the supplementary
statement show and on which there is no dispute, is that the
Informant and her husband came to Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar
and started working. The only allegations against the father-in-law
and mother-in-law are that, they used to telephonically instigate
the husband and resultantly, the husband used to harass her. It is
nowhere the case of Prosecution that, Applicant Nos.2 and 3 used
to call the first Informant and cause harassment. Except this, there
is no material against Applicant Nos.2 and 3. I find substance in
the contention of the learned Advocate for the Applicants that, the
allegations against Applicant Nos.2 and 3 are general, vague and

                                 3
                                                                  920.odt


omnibus and making them to face the trial would amount to abuse
of the process of law. Considering these undisputed aspects of the
matter, in my considered view, this is a fit case to exercise the
powers under Section 528 of BNSS. Hence, the following order :

                               ORDER

[I]    To the extent of Applicant No.1, the Application is disposed of
       as withdrawn.


[II]   The Application is allowed to the extent of Applicant Nos.2
       and 3 in terms of Prayer Clauses – ‘B’, ‘C-1’ and ‘C-3’.




                                          [NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.]




Sameer/June-2026




                                   4