SWATI SANJAY PATILversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

                                               (1)                 2criwp1308.23.odt




                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                             CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
                            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
       Digitally
       signed by              CR. WRIT PETITION NO. 1308 OF 2023
       VISHAL
VISHAL RAM
RAM    KAMBLE
                                        Swati Sanjay Patil
KAMBLE Date:
       2026.09.19                                                         ….Petitioner
       15:47:31
       +0530                                 VERSUS

                                 The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
                                                                        …..Respondents

              None for the Petitioner.
              Mr. Pankaj Deokar, APP for the Respondent/State
              Mr. Sachinkumar Rajepandhre, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2
              [through VC]

                                       CORAM         :   ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.
                                          DATE       :   17th SEPTEMBER, 2026
              ORAL JUDGMENT :

              1.          The Petitioner, being the sister-in-law of Respondent No.

              2, has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section

              482 of the Criminal Procedure Code [for short, ‘the Cr. P. C.’] to quash

              the FIR bearing No. 528/2022 registered at Vijapur Naka Police

              Station, Solapur (City) on 22-10-2022 for the offences punishable

              under Sections 323, 34, 498-A, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code

              [for short, ‘the IPC’] and initiation of further proceedings pursuant to

              the said FIR.

              2.          No one appears for the Petitioner when the matter is

              called out either in the court hall or through VC mode.

                                                                                 1 of 5
                                  (2)                 2criwp1308.23.odt




3.           Heard learned APP for Respondent/State and Advocate

for Respondent No. 2 and perused the record.

4.           At the outset, it appears that on 22/10/2022, the

informant/Respondent No. 2 lodged the report against the Petitioner

and three others alleging that they have subjected her to cruelty on

account of demand of dowry. Based on her complaint, an offence was

registered against the Petitioner and three others as referred to above.

Aggrieved by the same, the Petitioner has preferred this Petition.

5.           The learned APP, on instructions, submitted that, during

the pendency of this Petition, the charge sheet has been filed before

the learned Trial Court.

6.           The learned APP and Advocate for Respondent No. 2

strongly oppose the Petition, contending that there are specific

allegations against the Petitioner that she taunted and insulted her on

several occasions without any reason. Therefore, she is not entitled to

the relief as prayed and urges dismissal of the Petition.

7.           At the outset, it appears that the Petitioner is a married

sister-in-law of the Respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 married

Accused No. 1, Sadanand, in December 2014. She resided with

Accused No. 1 till July 2021. Thereafter, she left the house with her

father and lodged the FIR. The Petitioner and Respondent No. 2 never


                                                                     2 of 5
                                  (3)                2criwp1308.23.odt




lived together.

8.            On perusal of the FIR, it appears that allegations against

the present Petitioner are vague, omnibus, and general in nature. The

FIR contains no specific allegations against the Petitioner. The only

allegation against her is that she taunted and insulted her without any

reason. Still, no specific allegation appears that the Petitioner

committed any act constituting an offence under Section 498-A of the

IPC. Further, the FIR does not show the date, time, place, or manner

in which the Petitioner committed the alleged harassment. Mere vague

and omnibus allegations that she was instigating Accused No.1

Sadanand, without disclosing any specific role played by her, or that

she taunted and insulted her, cannot be said to establish that she had

subjected Respondent No. 2 to cruelty on account of demand of dowry

or that she caused harassment to her with a view to forcing her to meet

any unlawful demand or demand for any property or valuable security

to attract the provisions of Section 498-A of the IPC. Apart from that,

Respondent No. 2 and her husband, i.e., accused No. 1 Sadanand,

lived in Mumbai, and the Petitioner lives in Pune.

9.            Moreover, the Hon'ble Supreme Court time and again in

various judgments such as “Dara Lakshmi Narayan & others Vs State

of Telangana and another1, Geeta Mehrotra and Another Vs State of
1 2021 SCC OnLine SC 3682

                                                                   3 of 5
                                  (4)               2criwp1308.23.odt




U.P. and Another2, and Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and Others Vs

the State of Bihar and Others 3 has held that “merely making the

general allegations that the accused persons were involved for

physical and mental torture of the complainant without any specific

allegations indicating their active involvement or mentioning the

single incident against them as also the fact as to how they could be

motivated the demand of dowry when they are only related to husband

as brother or sister and therefore quashed the FIR.” In the case at

hand, the learned APP and Advocate for Respondent No. 2 did not

point out anything to show that Respondent No. 2 was subjected to

cruelty at the hands of the Petitioner to attract Section 498-A of the

IPC against her.

10.           Thus, in my view, it would not be appropriate to continue

the proceedings before the learned Trial Court against the present

Petitioner. Continuing the proceedings against the Petitioner would

amount to an abuse of the process of law and would not serve the ends

of justice. Therefore, in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the

Cr.P.C. / 528 of the BNSS, it would be appropriate to quash the FIR

and proceedings pending against her pursuant to the said FIR.


2 2012(10) SCC 741

3 (2022) 6 SCC 599

                                                                  4 of 5
                                      (5)             2criwp1308.23.odt




11.              As a result, the Petition is allowed in terms of prayer

clause (b).

12.              Accordingly, the FIR bearing No. 528/2022 registered at

Vijapur Naka Police Station, Solapur (City) on 22-10-2022 for the

offences punishable under Sections 323, 34, 498-A, 504 and 506 of

the Indian Penal Code [for short, ‘the IPC’] and initiation of further

proceedings pursuant to the said FIR are hereby quashed and set aside.

13.              The Petition is disposed of.



                                            [ABHAY J. MANTRI, J. ]




VishalK/2criwp1308.23.odt




                                                                   5 of 5