MRS. SMITA MANOJ KHARATversusBABAN BAPU KHARAT AND ORS

                                                     14 IA-1407-2024.DOC
skt



          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
              CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 338 OF 2020
                             WITH
             INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1407 OF 2024
                              IN
              CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 338 OF 2020
1. Baban Bapu Kharat
2. Sachin Baban Kharat                             …Applicants
3. Mrs. Tanuja Sunil Bhosale                       (Orig. Respondent
4. Mrs. Vanita Rajendra Kasbe                      Nos. 2, 4, 6, 7 and
5. Mrs. Dinika Rajendra Kasbe                      8)
           Vs.
1. State of Maharashtra                            …Respondents
2. Mrs. Smita Manoj Kharat                         (Orig. Applicants)


Mr. Raviraj S. Gamare a/w. Mr. Manoj Gaikwad, Shubhangi
Chorge, for the Applicants.
Mr. Savita M. Yadav, APP for the Respondent No.1-State.
Mr. Vishal Vinayak Rankhambe a/w. Aparna Rankhambe,
Chaitanya Bagul and Afsar Ansari, for the Respondent No.2.


                     CORAM:      MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
                     DATE :      8th SEPTEMBER, 2026
P. C.:

1.       Heard Mr. Gamare, learned counsel appearing for the

Applicants, Mr. Rankhambe, learned counsel appearing for

Respondent Nos. 2 and Ms. Yadav, learned APP for the State.



2.       It is the submission of Mr. Gamare, learned counsel

appearing for the Applicants that the Applicants are original



                                  Page 1 of 12
                             8th September, 2026
                                                    14 IA-1407-2024.DOC
skt



Respondent Nos. 2, 4, 6, 7 and 8 in the DV proceedings and except

general allegations, there are no allegations against the Applicants.

It is stated that the Applicant Nos.2, 4 and 6 are father-in-law,

brother-in-law and sister-in-law, respectively, and Applicant Nos. 4

and 5, i.e., Original Respondent Nos. 7 and 8 are not even the

relatives. It is submitted that except general allegations, there are

no allegations whatsoever against these Applicants, and therefore,

the DV proceedings be quashed as far as the Applicants, i.e.,

original Respondent Nos. 2, 4 and 6 to 8 are concerned.



3.    On the other hand, it is the contention of Respondent No. 2

that the challenge in this application is to the order dated 29 th

November 2019 passed in the Application under Section 25 of the

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (“DV Act”)

and this application filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (“Cr.P.C.”) is not maintainable, as there is a

remedy of appeal provided under Section 29 of the DV Act. It is

further submitted that in the complaint, specific role has been

assigned to these Applicants, and therefore, no interference in the

impugned order is warranted.




                                   Page 2 of 12
                              8th September, 2026
                                                    14 IA-1407-2024.DOC
skt



4.    As far as the contention that appeal is provided against order

dated 29th November 2019 passed under Section 25 of the DV Act,

it is the submission of leaned counsel appearing for the Applicants

that the prayer made in this application filed under Section 482 of

Cr.P.C. is two fold. The said order dated 29 th November 2019 is

also challenged and quashing of the proceedings has also been

sought. Thus, there is no alternate remedy of Appeal under Section

25 of the DV Act as far as prayer of quashing is concerned.



5.    Before considering the rival submissions, it is necessary to

observe the parameters for exercise of the extraordinary power

under Article 227 of the Constitution of India or the inherent

powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the

complaints which are well settled in the case of State of Haryana

and Others Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others 1, as also, in the subsequent

judgments. The parameters which are provided by the Supreme

Court in Bhajanlal & Ors. (Supra) reads as under :-


       “102.      In the backdrop of the interpretation of

       the various relevant provisions of the Code under

       Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated

1     1992 Supp (1) SCC 335


                                   Page 3 of 12
                              8th September, 2026
                                                   14 IA-1407-2024.DOC
skt



      by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the

      exercise of the extraordinary power under Article

      226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the

      Code which we have extracted and reproduced

      above, we have given the following categories of

      cases by way of illustration wherein such power

      could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the

      process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends

      of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down

      any   precise,   clearly   defined     and   sufficiently

      channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid

      formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad

      kinds of cases wherein such power should be

      exercised.

      (1) Where the allegations made in the first

      information report or the complaint, even if they are

      taken at their face value and accepted in their

      entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or

      make out a case against the accused.

      (2) Where the allegations in the first information

      report and other materials, if any, accompanying the


                                  Page 4 of 12
                             8th September, 2026
                                                   14 IA-1407-2024.DOC
skt



      FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying

      an investigation by police officers under Section

      156(1) of the Code except under an order of a

      Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of

      the Code.

      (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in

      the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in

      support of the same do not disclose the commission

      of any offence and make out a case against the

      accused.

      (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not

      constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a

      non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted

      by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate

      as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

      (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or

      complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable

      on the basis of which no prudent person can ever

      reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground

      for proceeding against the accused.




                                  Page 5 of 12
                             8th September, 2026
                                                     14 IA-1407-2024.DOC
skt



       (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in

       any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned

       Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted)

       to the institution and continuance of the proceedings

       and/or where there is a specific provision in the

       Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious

       redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

       (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly

       attended   with   mala    fide    and/or     where   the

       proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior

       motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and

       with a view to spite him due to private and personal

       grudge.”

                                          (Emphasis added)

6.    Thus, the Supreme Court has held that the allegations made

in the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and

accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence

or make out a case against the accused, where the allegations in

the complaint and other materials do not disclose a cognizable

offence, where the uncontroverted allegations made in the

complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not


                                   Page 6 of 12
                              8th September, 2026
                                                    14 IA-1407-2024.DOC
skt



disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case

against the accused, where the allegations made in the complaint

are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no

prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is

sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused and that

criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or

where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior

motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to

spite him due to private and personal grudge.


7.    Thus, it is necessary to examine the complaint which is filed

by the Respondent No. 2 under the provisions of the DV Act on the

touchstone of the parameters of Bhajanlal & Ors. (supra).


8.    Perusal of the complaint shows that it has been filed against

the husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-

law, and Respondent Nos. 7 and 8, i.e., present Applicant Nos. 4

and 5, who are not at all related with Respondent No.2.           The

complaint is about 16 pages consisting of 41 paragraphs. As far as

the allegations against the original Respondent Nos. 7 and 8, i.e.,




                                   Page 7 of 12
                              8th September, 2026
                                                       14 IA-1407-2024.DOC
skt



the present Applicant Nos. 4 and 5 are found in paragraph No. 28,

which reads as under :-


       "२८. अर्जदा र हि चे असे म् णण आ              की , बा ळ अहि चे
       महि न्या चे झा ल्या नंतर र्ज बादा र नं. ३, ५, ६, व ७
       अर्जदा र या च्या र त्या घर* आले तसेचे अर्जदा र या च्या
       बार,बार भां ण कीरुनं आम् ले बा ळ ले दाव ले दा खव याचे
       आ    असे बा,ले0नं फक्त बा ळ ले घव0नं चे र त से गा याबा झा ले
       तसेचे चे र त से नंतर बा ळ ले घव0नं परत अर्जदा र या च्या
       र त्या घर* आण0नं से, ले.”


9.    The above allegation as contained in paragraph No. 28 is

only against original Respondent No. 7. In the entire complaint,

there is no allegation whatsoever against the original Respondent

No.8. Thus, the only allegation against Respondent No. 7 is that

she took the child along with Respondent Nos. 3, 5 and 6 for the

purpose of taking the child to the temple and within a period of

four hours, the child was brought to the house of the Applicants.


10.   As noted earlier, as far as Respondent No. 8 is concerned,

except mentioning her name in the cause-title in the DV

proceedings, there is no allegation whatsoever against the original

Respondent No. 8. As far as original Respondent No. 7 is

concerned, apart from the allegation contained in paragraph No.


                                   Page 8 of 12
                              8th September, 2026
                                                   14 IA-1407-2024.DOC
skt



28 of the complaint, there is no other allegation whatsoever

against her. Thus, by no stretch of imagination, can it be said that

any relief under the provisions of the DV Act could be granted

against original Respondent Nos. 7 and 8, i.e., the present

Applicant Nos. 4 and 5.       Thus, applying the parameters of

Bhajanlal & Ors. (supra), it is clear that no useful purpose will be

served by keeping the said DV proceedings pending against

original Respondent Nos. 7 and 8, i.e., the present Applicant Nos. 4

and 5.


11.   Perusal of the entire complaint shows that the main

allegations are against original Respondent No.1, i.e., husband and

the original Respondent No.3, i.e., mother-in-law. Prima facie, the

allegations made against them are serious allegations. However, as

far as the Applicant No. 1, i.e. original Respondent No.2-father-in-

law, Applicant No. 2, i.e., original Respondent No.4-brother-in-law

and Applicant No.3, i.e., original Respondent No. 6-sister-in-law,

the allegations are only found in paragraph No. 30, which are

general in nature against original Respondent Nos. 1 to 5. No

specific allegations are made against original Respondent no.2 and

Respondent No. 4. Except said allegation, there is no other




                                  Page 9 of 12
                             8th September, 2026
                                                     14 IA-1407-2024.DOC
skt



allegation pointed out to me against Respondent Nos. 2 and 4. As

far as the allegation against Respondent No. 6 is concerned, there

is some reference in Paragraph 15. The only allegation against

Respondent No. 6 is that although the mother of the Applicant

made request to Respondent No. 6, she has rejected the same. In

any case, even if entire complaint is read as it is and examined on

the touchstone of parameters which are set out in the case of

Bhajanlal & Ors. (supra), it is clear that no useful purpose will be

served by keeping these DV proceedings pending against the

present Applicants, i.e., Original Respondent Nos. 2, 4 and 6 to 8.

As far as Respondent No.2 is concerned, he is a senior citizen of 72

years.



12.      Thus, in the facts and circumstances, a case is made out for

quashing of said D.V. complaint bearing Case No.121/DV/2018

pending before the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 62 nd

Court at Dadar (now J.M.F.C. at Sewri) only qua present

Applicants, i.e., original Respondent Nso. 2, 4 and 6 to 8.

Resultantly, the same is quashed and set aside only against the

present Applicants, i.e., original Respondent No.2-Baban Babu

Kharant, Respondent No.4, Sachin Baban Kharat, Respondent No.



                                   Page 10 of 12
                               8th September, 2026
                                                   14 IA-1407-2024.DOC
skt



6-Tanuja Sunil Bhosale, Respondent No.7- Vanita Rajendra Kasbe

and Respondent No. 8- Dinika Rajendra Kasbe.



13.   Criminal Application No. 338 of 2020 is disposed of in above

terms. .



14.   However, it is required to be noted that the said DV

complaint is of the year 2018 and the same is pending for about

last eights years. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances, the

learned JMFC is requested to dispose of the said DV complaint as

against original Respondent No.1-Manoj Baban Kharat, original

Respondent    No.   3-Dakshabai     Baban     Kharat   and   original

Respondent No. 5-Kavita Sachin Kharat, on or before 31st

December 2027.


15.   It is clarified that the observations made in this order are

only for the purpose of consideration of quashing of the complaint

as against the present Applicants, and therefore, learned JMFC is

requested to dispose of the trial uninfluenced by the observations

made in this order as against other Respondents in the said D.V.

complaint.




                                 Page 11 of 12
                             8th September, 2026
                                                    14 IA-1407-2024.DOC
skt



16.   As the Criminal Application No. 338 of 2020 is disposed of,

nothing survives in Interim Application No. 1407 of 2024, and the

same is also disposed of.


17.   It is further clarified that the observations made in this order

are only with respect to the DV proceedings and other proceedings

pending between the parties are to be disposed of on the merits of

those proceedings.


                                            [MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]




                                  Page 12 of 12
                              8th September, 2026