ASHISH PRAKASH MAHAJAN AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

2026:BHC-AUG:41825-DB




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                             CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 49 OF 2022

           1.    Ashish Prakash Mahajan
           2.    Prakash Bhimrao Mahajan
           3.    Anil Bhimrao Mahajan
           4.    Sau. Vandana Dnyaneshwar Mahajan
           5.    Paresh Anil Mahajan
           6.    Sau. Poonam Sandeep Mahajan
           7.    Dnyaneshwar Bhimrao Mahajan
           8.    Ganesh Prakash Mahajan
           9.    Sau. Meena Rajendra Gite
           10.   Sarala Himmat Mahajan                        ...Applicants

                 VERSUS

           1.    The State of Maharashtra
           2.    Sau. Jayashree Ashish Mahajan                ...Respondents

           ...
           Mr. M. M. Bhokarikar, Advocate for Applicants
           Mr. A. R. Kale, APP for Respondent – State
           Mr. S. T. Mahajan, Advocate for Respondent No. 2
                                                ...
                                                    CORAM        : R. M. JOSHI, J.
                                                    DATE         :03rd SEPTEMBER 2026



           PER COURT :-

           1.    After hearing Learned Counsels for both sides and when this Court has
           shown disinclination to grant relief to Applicant Nos.1 to 3, Learned Counsel
           for the Applicants, on instructions, seeks withdrawal of Application qua
           Applicant Nos. 1 to 3.



           Crim.Appln.49/2022.odt                  1 of 5
2.    This Application is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, the present Applicants seek quashment of First Information
Report in Crime No. 0507/2021 dated 24.11.2021 registered with Amalner
Police Station, District Jalgaon for offences punishable under Sections 498-A,
323, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”).


3.    The case of the prosecution is that the complainant, Jayshree Ashish
Mahajan, married Applicant No. 1 (Ashish Prakash Mahajan) on 29/05/2019
as per Hindu rites and resided in a joint family at Chahardi, Taluka Chopda.
Approximately two months after the marriage, when the complainant's father
visited her matrimonial home, Applicant No. 1 along with Applicant No. 2
(father-in-law) and Applicant No. 3 (uncle-in-law) demanded ₹5,000,000 to
purchase a goods transport vehicle. Upon the father's expression of financial
inability to meet the demand, Applicant Nos. 1 through 10 excluding the
mother-in-law subjected the complainant to physical assault, verbal abuse,
and continuous mental harassment, while accused No. 10 routinely criticized
her household work and marital customs.


4.    Due to ongoing ill-treatment, the complainant sought shelter at her
maternal uncle’s residence in Amalner on 10/11/2020. On 02/10/2021 at
approximately 11:00 AM, accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 7 visited her uncle's
house, where they verbally abused both the complainant and her uncle and
issued criminal threats regarding her cohabitation. Consequently, the
complainant lodged a formal written complaint at the Amalner Police Station
on 24/11/2021 against the ten named accused family members for physical
and mental cruelty.


5.    The learned council for the applicants summit that this is a case of false


Crim.Appln.49/2022.odt                    2 of 5
implication, so also there is delay of 1 year in lodging the first information
report. For want of any allegations being attributable to present applicants of
they physically and mentally harassing the complainant, the prosecution has
to show that that is sufficient evidence on record in order to indicate that
complainant has suffered physical and mental abuse at the whims of present
applicants. He drew the attention of the court to the FIR and charge sheet on
record to contend that the allegations against the applicant are vague and on
bases of such omnibus and vague allegations the applicant cannot be tried. He
further submits that it cannot be said that elements of the offence alleged
against the present applicants are fulfilled.


6.    Learned APP and Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2 submits that
the application for quashing deserves to be dismissed, as the FIR clearly shows
prima facie case of cruelty under Section 498A of IPC being made out. The
attention of the court is drawn to reply filed by Respondent No.2 to contend
that there are multiple proceedings filed against present Applicants which
shows the genuinity of proceedings and complicity of the Present Applicants
in causing the acts alleged against them. It is further argued that claim of the
Applicants living separately does not absolve them from the offence, as they
actively acted together causing cruelty, so also the statements of witnesses
recorded indicate harassment caused are sufficient to implicate the present
Application for offence alleged.


7.    It's undisputed that the marriage between complainant/Respondent
No.2 and Applicant No.1 was solemnised on 29/05/2019. The respondent
No.2 left matrimonial Home on Bitstream Charter10/11/2020 and started
residing at her maternal uncle's house. Thereafter, on 24/11/2021,
complainant/Respondent No.2 registered a FIR against the present applicants.
Thus, this indicates that there is a crack in relation between respondent No. 2,


Crim.Appln.49/2022.odt                     3 of 5
and Present Applicants some time after solemnisation of marriage of
Respondent No.2 and applicant No.1 and in any case for a period of 1 years
prior to lodging of report, the Respondent No.2 is residing separately. There is
a delay of almost 1 year in lodging of the FIR as rightly argued by learned
counsel for the Applicant.

8.    Prima facie perusal of the record shows that all of the Applicant Nos. 4
to 10 are residing separately distant from the matrimonial home of
Respondent No.2 and there are no specific, but generalized, omnibus and
arbitrary allegations against them of causing mental and physical harassment
to the Respondent No. 2 when they visited matrimonial home.



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
SCC 741, Preeti Gupta & Anr. v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 667,
Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar, (2022) 6 SCC 599 which states that
relatives which are residing separately cannot be forced to face trial under
Section 498A of IPC based on vague and sweeping allegations.


10.   In so far as statements of witnesses recorded are concerned, the same is
not sufficient to implicate the applicants and hold them culpable for acts
alleged. The allegations made against the present Applicants are purely
Omnibus as they lack specific overt acts and there is absence of evidence of
physical and mental cruelty being caused to the Respondent No.2.


11.   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.


Crim.Appln.49/2022.odt                    4 of 5
12.      Bare perusal of the investigation papers indicate that present Applicants
are brought into sweep of this crime in order to cause harassment and
distress. Prima facie this Court is of the view that involvement of the present
Applicants is done with malafide intentions only because they are related to
Applicant No.1/Husband of the Complainant. On the basis of such allegations,
if the present Applicants are called upon to undergo rigors of trial, it would
lead to miscarriage of Justice. Therefore, the aforesaid accusations, even if
taken at face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute any
offence.


13.      It is evident from the above discussion, that the applicants being
relatives of the Applicant No.1/Husband have been roped in under Section
498A IPC without specific allegations, purely to settle personal vendetta.
Allowing such proceedings to continue would be a gross abuse of the process
of the court. Consequently, the FIR and consequential proceedings against the
applicants are liable to be quashed and set aside.


14.      In view of above, application qua Applicant No. 1 to 3 stands dismissed
as withdrawn and application qua Applicant Nos. 4 to 10 stands allowed in
terms of prayer clauses ‘b’.




                                                     (R. M. JOSHI, J.)

Malani




Crim.Appln.49/2022.odt                      5 of 5