PRASENJEET KASHINATH ALIAS KASHIRAM KHADSE AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

2026:BHC-AUG:39608-DB
                                            -1-
                                                            954-APPLN-954-2025

                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                           CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 954 OF 2025

              1.   Prasenjeet S/o Kashinath @ Kashiram Khadse (Husband)
                   Age: 38 years, Occu.: Service,
                   R/o. Panchsheel Nagar, Basmat,
                   Tq. Basmat, Dist. Hingoli.

              2.   Sharada W/o Kashinath @ Kashiram Khadse (Mother-in-law)
                   Age: 70 years, Occu.: Household,
                   R/o. Panchsheel Nagar, Basmat,
                   Tq. Basmat, Dist. Hingoli.

              3.   Pradeep S/o Kashinath @ Kashiram Khadse (Brother-in-law)
                   Age: 41 years, Occu.: Service,
                   R/o. Plot No. 9, Building No. L-04,
                   Flat No. 504, Sector-15,
                   Hansdhwani Housing Complex,
                   Panvel, Dist. Raigad.

              4.   Vishram S/o Nagoji Khadse (Cousin Father-in-law)
                   Age: 68 years, Occu.: Retired,
                   R/o. Plot No. 8, Irrigation Colony,
                   Civil Line, Chikhali Road, Washim,
                   Tq. & Dist. Washim.

              5.   Shobha W/o Vishram Khadse (Cousin Mother-in-law)
                   Age: 63 years, Occu.: Household,
                   R/o. Plot No. 8, Irrigation Colony,
                   Civil Line, Chikhali Road, Washim,
                   Tq. & Dist. Washim.

              6.   Gautam S/o Nagoji Khadse (Cousin Father-in-law)
                   Age: 66 years, Occu.: Retired,
                   R/o. Aadarsh Colony, Hingoli,
                   Tq. & Dist. Hingoli.

              7.   Maya W/o Gautam Khadse (Cousin Mother-in-law)
                   Age: 62 years, Occu.: Household,
                   R/o. Aadarsh Colony, Hingoli,
                   Tq. & Dist. Hingoli.
                                -2-
                                                 954-APPLN-954-2025

8.    Sujata W/o Suresh Tajane (Sister-in-law)
      Age: 49 years, Occu.: Household,
      R/o. Shikshak Colony, Dongaon Road,
      Ward No. 5, Mehkar,
      Tq. Mehkar, Dist. Buldhana.

9.    Suresh S/o Gopalrao Tajane (Husband of applicant No.8)
      Age: 56 years, Occu.: Service,
      R/o. Shikshak Colony, Dongaon Road,
      Ward No. 5, Mehkar,
      Tq. Mehkar, Dist. Buldhana.

10.   Savita W/o Vijay Thoke (Sister-in-law)
      Age: 46 years, Occu.: Household,
      R/o. A-950, Jawala, Khardarbhan Road,
      Ashok Nagar, Basmat,
      Tq. Basmat, Dist. Hingoli.

11.   Vijay S/o Sakharam Thoke (Husband of applicant No.10)
      Age: 55 years, Occu.: Service,
      R/o. A-950, Jawala, Khardarbhan Road,
      Ashok Nagar, Basmat,
      Tq. Basmat, Dist. Hingoli.

12.   Varsha W/o Shailesh Wankhede (Sister-in-law)
      Age: 44 years, Occu.: Household,
      R/o. Parvati Niwas, House No. 150/713,
      Near Suraj Sweet Mart,
      Sant Tukaram Nagar, Pimpri,
      Pune City, Pune – 411018.

13.   Shailesh S/o Vasant Wankhede (Husband of applicant No.12)
      Age: 49 years, Occu.: Service,
      R/o. Parvati Niwas, House No. 150/713,
      Near Suraj Sweet Mart,
      Sant Tukaram Nagar, Pimpri,
      Pune City, Pune – 411018.                 … Applicants

           Versus

1.    The State of Maharashtra
      Through Investigation Officer,
      Hingoli Rural Police Station,
      Dist. Hingoli.
                                 -3-
                                                   954-APPLN-954-2025

2.    Pradnya W/o Prasanjeet Khadse
      Age: 32 years, Occu.: Household,              … (Informant)
      At present R/o. Pragati Nagar,
      Karwadi, Tq. & Dist. Hingoli.                 … Respondents

                               .....
Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Dhananjay Shinde h/f. Mr. Gajanan
Tukaram Kharate
APP for Respondent No.1 – State : Mr. S. V. Hange
Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mrs. A. S. Deshmukh
                               .....

                            CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.
                            DATED : 28th AUGUST 2026
JUDGMENT :

1.          Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent

of the parties.



2.          At the outset, the learned Advocate for applicants

seeks permission to withdraw the present Criminal Application on

behalf of applicant No.1 - husband. Permission is granted. The

Criminal Application stands dismissed as withdrawn as against

applicant No.1.



3.          The present application is filed under Section 482 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the entire proceedings

bearing RCC No. 61 of 2025, pending on the file of the learned

Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hingoli along with the FIR, charge-

sheet and the order of cognizance dated 06th February, 2025.
                                  -4-
                                                    954-APPLN-954-2025

4.          Heard learned Advocates appearing for the respective

parties.



5.          The learned Advocate for the applicants submits that

the complainant was married to accused No.1 on 4 th May, 2016 and

since then, till the date of registration of FIR i.e. 21 st June, 2024,

they resided together. Out of the said wedlock, they have one male

offspring. He further submits that a perusal of FIR suggests that,

after few days of the marriage, the complainant was allegedly

subjected to physical and mental harassment on the count that she

was not well-versed with household work and also on the

allegations of demand of a car costing Rs.10 lakhs. On account of

both these harassment, allegation is that the accused husband

along with the present applicants used to physically and verbally

abuse the complainant, i.e. present respondent No.2. Due to which,

on several occasions, the family of the informant had to intervene

and request the family members as well as the husband of

respondent No.2 and his family members, not to cause harassment

to respondent No.2, but to treat her properly and not to harass her

or keep her hungry.



6.          It is further alleged that, for some time, the accused

husband and the present applicants used to stop the harassment;
                                  -5-
                                                     954-APPLN-954-2025

however, again after the lapse of some period, the harassment used

to be continued. It is further alleged that, three years prior to

submitting a complaint to the office of Women Grievance Redressal

Cell on 21st September, 2023, the present FIR came to be registered

on 21st June, 2024.



7.          The learned Advocate for the applicants submits that

on perusal of the entire contents of FIR demonstrates that there

are general and vague allegations against the applicants, who are

family members but are distant relatives and are also residing

separately from accused No. 1 - husband and respondent No. 2. He

further argues that, save and except the allegations of harassment,

demand and physical assault upon respondent No.2, which are

stated in general and vague terms, there is no specific allegation

against any of the present applicants. He thus submits that, in

absence of any such specific allegations, the ingredients of the

offences alleged against the applicants are not made out, and

therefore, this is a fit case for quashing of the proceedings.



8.          He further argues that all the present applicants are

admittedly related to each other and also accused No.1- husband

and respondent No.2. However, all of them are residing separately.

He submits that applicant No.2, who is mother-in-law, is almost 70
                                  -6-
                                                    954-APPLN-954-2025

years of age and is the only applicant who resided along with the

husband and respondent No.2 throughout the subsistence of their

marriage.    He submits that applicant No.3, though being the

brother-in-law is working in Mumbai and resides at Panvel along

with his family. Applicants Nos.4 to 7 are not only senior citizens

but are also residing at their respective residences, far away from

the matrimonial house of respondent No.2 along with their own

families. As far as applicant No.8 is concerned, who is the sister-in-

law of respondent No.2, she is married, and she along with

applicant No.9, who happens to be her husband, is residing in

District Buldhana. The other sister-in-law, i.e. applicant No.10

resides along with applicant No.11, who is the husband of applicant

No.10 is residing at Basmat, Dist. Hingoli. Though the matrimonial

house also happens to be at Hingoli, they have their own family and

therefore own residence at Ashok Nagar, which is at the distance

about 4 to 5 kms. He submits that, applicant No.11 is an Assistant

Teacher and therefore, there is no reason as to why applicants

Nos.10 and 11 would continuously visit the matrimonial house of

accused No.1 and respondent No.2. The other applicant Nos.12 and

13 are again husband and wife and are residing at Pimpri, Pune.

Thus, he submits that the repeated allegations of harassment,

vaguely     made   against   applicants   Nos.3   to 13 cannot     be

substantiated by any specific allegation and therefore, for the
                                -7-
                                                  954-APPLN-954-2025

reason that they are residing separately, they have been added in

the present offence only by way of creating pressure and harassing

the present applicants. He argues that, as far as applicant No.2,

who is the mother-in-law and is residing along with accused No.1

and respondent No.2 is concerned, the allegations are made once

again general in nature along with other accused persons. There

are no specific allegations against her as well. Taking into

consideration that she is almost 70 years of age, she has been

unnecessarily dragged into the present proceedings on the basis of

false allegations.



9.          Learned Advocate appearing for respondent No.2

submits that, the scope of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. application while

considering prayer for quashing of the offence is concerned, this

Court does not have to minutely scrutinize each and every piece of

evidence that has been placed on record by the prosecution. She

argues that, once prima facie case supported by sufficient material

is placed on record by the prosecution, then application under

Section 482 for quashing should fail. She further argues that the

FIR specifically makes allegations against the applicants as a whole

and therefore it constitutes offences under which the FIR has been

registered. There are clear allegations levelled against the present

applicants pertaining to physical and mental harassment along
                                 -8-
                                                    954-APPLN-954-2025

with demand of dowry in the nature of a monetary demand of

Rs.10 lakhs for the purpose of purchasing a car. She submits that,

when such kind of allegations are specifically made in the FIR and

the same are reiterated by all the other witnesses whose

statements are recorded by the prosecution, the fact as to whether

the accused persons are staying together or separately has no

bearing at this stage. This will have to be proved before the learned

Trial Court by leading substantive evidence. She thus argues that

there is sufficient material on record to demonstrate the

commission of the offence at the hands of all the applicants and

therefore this is not a fit case which needs to be quashed at the pre-

evidence stage.



10.        I have heard both the learned Advocates and have also

considered the entire record which has been placed before me in

the nature of charge-sheet. To some extent, the submissions made

by the learned Advocate for respondent No.2 are correct. A reading

of the FIR as well as the statements of the prosecution witnesses

does demonstrate that there are allegations pertaining to mental

and physical harassment caused to respondent No.2. There is also

a specific allegation of demand of Rs.10 lakhs for the purchase of a

car, allegedly made from the parents of respondent No.2. Though

these allegations constitute the commission of an offence under
                                  -9-
                                                    954-APPLN-954-2025

Section 498-A of IPC, the test that is required to be applied is

whether these allegations are specifically made against the accused

persons or whether they are vaguely made only with an intention

of dragging the entire family into the alleged offence. A reading of

the FIR as well as the statements does not disclose any specific

overt act, specific allegation, or specific incident, with date and

time against the present applicants. What is being stated in the FIR

is in the nature of vague and general allegations against the entire

family and the extended family, wherein it is stated that all the

applicants, at one or the other point of time, together used to cause

mental and physical harassment to respondent No.2. In absence of

any specification or specific attribution of role pertaining to

individual acts allegedly committed at a particular time and date, it

is absolutely difficult to hold that the applicants are involved in the

commission of the offence.



11.         The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar v.

State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273, it was observed as

under :


           “4. There is phenomenal increase in matrimonial
           disputes in recent years. The institution of marriage is
           greatly revered in this country. Section 498-A IPC was
           introduced with avowed object to combat the menace of
                                  -10-
                                                      954-APPLN-954-2025

           harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband and
           his relatives. The fact that Section 498-A IPC is a
           cognizable and non-bailable offence has lent it a dubious
           place of pride amongst the provisions that are used as
           weapons rather than shield by disgruntled wives. The
           simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his
           relatives arrested under this provision. In a quite number
           of cases, bed-ridden grand-fathers and grand-mothers of
           the husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are
           arrested.”


12.        Further in case of Preeti Gupta and Ors. v. State of

Jharkhand and Ors. reported in (2010) 7 SCC 667, it has also been

observed as under :-

           32. It is a matter of common experience that most of
           these complaints under Section 498A IPC are filed in the
           heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper
           deliberations. We come across a large number of such
           complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed
           with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in
           the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment are
           also a matter of serious concern.


           33. The learned members of the Bar have enormous
           social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the
           social fiber of family life is not ruined or demolished.
           They must ensure that exaggerated versions of small
           incidents should not be reflected in the criminal
                         -11-
                                              954-APPLN-954-2025

complaints. Majority of the complaints are filed either on
their advice or with their concurrence. The learned
members of the Bar who belong to a noble profession
must maintain its noble traditions and should treat every
complaint under Section 498A as a basic human problem
and must make serious endeavour to help the parties in
arriving at an amicable resolution of that human
problem. They must discharge their duties to the best of
their abilities to ensure that social fiber, peace and
tranquility of the society remains intact. The members of
the Bar should also ensure that one complaint should
not lead to multiple cases.


34. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint
the implications and consequences are not properly
visualized by the complainant that such complaint can
lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to
the complainant, accused and his close relations.


35. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth
and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find
out the truth is a herculean task in majority of these
complaints. The tendency of implicating husband and all
his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times,
even after the conclusion of criminal trial, it is difficult to
ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely
careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints
and must take pragmatic realities into consideration
while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of
                                  -12-
                                                      954-APPLN-954-2025

           harassment of husband's close relations who had been
           living in different cities and never visited or rarely
           visited the place where the complainant resided would
           have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of
           the complaint are required to be scrutinized with great
           care and circumspection.


           36.   Experience reveals that long and protracted
           criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony and bitterness
           in the relationship amongst the parties. It is also a
           matter of common knowledge that in cases filed by the
           complainant if the husband or the husband's relations
           had to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin
           the chances of amicable settlement altogether. The
           process of suffering is extremely long and painful.”


           Hence, the Hon’ble Apex Court, time and again, has

cautioned against roping in and involving the entire family and the

extended family at the hands of the wife while alleging an offence

under Section 498-A. The Hon’ble Apex Court has held that

whenever such kind of vague allegations are made against the

entire family and the extended family, then the Court should be

cautious enough to permit the criminal proceedings to continue

against such family members who have been dragged only with a

vengeance of harassment. Presently, the present case is of such

nature where the allegations are neither specific nor pertaining to
                                -13-
                                                  954-APPLN-954-2025

any specific incident disclosing the time and date on which it has

been caused. The other factor that sways this Court in favour of

cautioning the proceedings against the present applicants is the

period during which the harassment has been caused. Respondent

No.2 has stated that the marriage was performed between accused

No.1- husband and herself on 4th May, 2016 and there is a son born

out of the said wedlock. She had continued to reside along with

accused No.1 and applicant No.2 till 2020. She thereafter had left

the premises of the matrimonial house and proceeded to reside

along with her maternal family. Respondent No.2 did not choose to

file any complaint from 2020 till 2023, and it is only for the first

time in the year 2023, the complaint was submitted to the Office of

the Women's Redressal Cell, which subsequently came to be

registered as the present FIR. The Court is very cautious while

acknowledging and appreciating the delay in 498-A matters for the

reason that, in Indian society, a married woman always consumes

time with an expectation that her marriage can be saved. However,

in the present case, the allegations are immediately after the

marriage, i.e. from 2016 and it demonstrates that the family of

respondent No.2 had made several attempts of saving the marriage

by requesting applicant No.1 and his family members to stop the

harassment. In spite of such continuous efforts, when ultimately

respondent No.2 had to leave the matrimonial house, then it is
                                -14-
                                                  954-APPLN-954-2025

difficult to understand as to what prompted respondent No.2

suddenly in the year 2023 to lodge the present FIR against the

entire family and extended family. There is no explanation that

has come forward in the FIR or even in the entire charge-sheet.


13.        The allegations which has already observed, are

general and not specific, but vague. The present application is not

on behalf of accused No.1-husband, against whom there are specific

allegations found in the FIR and in the investigation papers. The

continuation of this proceedings against the present applicants will

cause undue agony and harassment to the applicants and

therefore, in absence of any specific allegations, this Court is

inclined to allow the present application and quash the entire

proceedings.


14.        In the aforesaid facts and circumstances and for the

reasons provided above, the application stands allowed in terms of

prayer clause (B), (B-1), and (B-2).



15.        The FIR bearing No.271 of 2024, dated 21 st June, 2024,

registered with Hingoli Rural Police Station, District Hingoli, for

the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 read with

Section 34 of IPC along with charge-sheet dated 06.02.2025, order

of cognizance dated 06.02.2025 passed by the learned JMFC,
                                 -15-
                                                  954-APPLN-954-2025

Hingoli and consequential R.C.C. No.61 of 2025 pending on the file

of the learned JMFC, Hingoli, are hereby quashed and set aside as

against applicant Nos.2 to 13.



16.        As far as the proceedings in respect of applicant No.1,

who is husband of respondent No.2 are concerned, the same shall

continue to proceed.



17.        The observations made in the present judgment are

specific against applicant Nos.2 to 13 and the entire trial and the

appreciation of evidence be conducted on its own merits and in

accordance with law against the accused husband, and the Trial

Court shall not be influenced by any observations that are made in

the present judgment.


18.        The Criminal Application is disposed of accordingly.



                                        (HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR)
                                               JUDGE




Tandale