CHANDRAMANI DIGAMBER @ DEVDATTA BANSODE AND ANOTHERversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

2026:BHC-AUG:17564-DB
                                              (1)                   cwp-221-2025.odt




                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                               BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                          CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.221 OF 2025
               1.       Chandramani S/o Digamber @ Devdatta Bansode,
                        Age: 43 years, Occu. Self employed  (Brother-in-law)

               2.       Ashweeni W/o Chandramani Bansode, (Co-sister)
                        Age: 30 years, Occu. Household,
                        R/o. Behind Bandhkam Bhavan, Old Ausa Road,
                        Gopal Nagar, Latur.
                        Tq. and Dist. Latur.                     ..Petitioners

                                Versus

               1.       State of Maharashtra
                        Through Police Station Officer,
                        M.I.D.C. Police Station Latur
                        Tq. & Dist. Latur.

               2.    Pallavi W/o Suraj Bansode,
                     Age: 27 years, Occ. Household,
                     R/o. Vikram Nagar, Latur.
                     Tq. & Dist. Latur. Mo. No.: 989076989….        ..Respondents
                                                       (Resp. No.2 org. informant)
                                                 …
               Mr. Avinash A. Phad, Advocate for Petitioners
               Mr. S. N Kendre, APP for Respondent-State.
               Ms. Vishakha V. Bang, Advocate for Respondent No.2 (Appointed).
                                                …

                                           CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
                                           DATED : 10th APRIL, 2026.

               JUDGMENT:-

               1.       Rule.     Rule made returnable forthwith.   By consent of

               parties, matter is taken up for final hearing at the admission stage.


               2.       The petitioners seeks quashment of FIR No.83/2025 dated

               06.02.2025 registered with M.I.D.C Police Station, Dist. Latur for
                            (2)                      cwp-221-2025.odt



offence punishable under Sections 85, 115, 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of

Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and consequential proceeding in

R.C.C. No.246/2025 pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Latur.


3.   The investigation was set in motion on the basis of

information given by respondent no.2 alleging that on 11.06.2023

she married with Suraj Bansode. After marriage she resided at

matrimonial home.     She was treated well for few days after

marriage. However, in-laws started teasing her for the reason that

she cannot cook well. All of them started insulting her for trifle

reasons. She was subjected to physical and mental harassment.

Her husband used to say that he do not like her.           When she

complained about misbehaviour of her husband to her in-laws, they

used to blame her. Thereafter, in-laws started demand of money

for purchase of house and TV set etc..         Her brother-in-law

Chandramani used to abuse her. Although her parents and other

relatives intervened, there was no change in behaviour of in-laws.

Lastly, she was sent back to maternal home alongwith her brother

and asked to bring Rs.10,00,000/-, if she wants to resume.


4.   The aforesaid information culminated into registration of

FIR. After due investigation, charge-sheet is filed and at present

R.C.C. No.246/2025 is pending before CJM, Latur.
                             (3)                        cwp-221-2025.odt



5.    Mr.   Avinash    Phad,       learned   Advocate   appearing          for

petitioners submits that petitioners are brother-in-law and co-

sister of respondent no.2. Except one line allegation in FIR that

petitioner no.1/brother-in-law that he abused her, there is nothing

against petitioners. The allegations in FIR are omnibus, unspecific

and insufficient to make out any case against petitioners.                 He

would, therefore, urge to allow petition.


6.    Per contra, Mr. Kendre, learned APP appearing for

respondent-State and Ms. Bang, learned Advocate appearing for

respondent no.2 vehemently apposes prayers in petition.


7.    Having    considered     submissions     advanced    by      learned

Advocates appearing for respective parties and on perusal of

contents of FIR alongwith statements of witnesses recorded during

course of investigation, it is discernible that allegations in FIR are

omnibus, unspecific and simply states that respondent no.2 was

initially ill-treated for trifle reasons and lastly demand of money

was raised for purchase of Television and house.                  In last

paragraph, it is said that she was driven out of home and asked to

return only if she brings Rs.10,00,000/- from her parents.                 The

averments in FIR are bereft to make out any offence against

petitioners. Although there is one line allegation against petitioner

no.1 that he abused respondent no.2, particulars of incident are not

given. The date, place and reasons for such abuse is not specified.
                              (4)                      cwp-221-2025.odt



Even otherwise, allegations in FIR are not supported by

statements of witnesses recorded during course of investigation

and made part of charge-sheet.


8.       At this stage, reference can be given to observations made by

the Supreme Court in case of Preeti Gupta and Another and

Another Vs. State of Jharkhand and Another1, wherein Apex

Court observed in paragraph nos.30, 32 and 34 as under :-

      “30. It is a matter of common knowledge that
      unfortunately matrimonial litigation is rapidly increasing
      in our country. All the courts in our country including this
      court are flooded with matrimonial cases. This clearly
      demonstrates discontent and unrest in the family life of a
      large number of people of the society.

      32. It is a matter of common experience that most of these
      complaints under section 498-A 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.
      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.”

9.       In yet another judgment in case of Kahkashan Kausar @
Sonam and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others 2, the
Supreme Court after taking stock of various earlier decisions in the
subject matter, observed in paragraph no.17 as under:
      “17. The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate
      that this court has at numerous instances expressed concern
      over the misuse of section 498A IPC and the increased
1    (2010) 7 SCC 667.
2    (2022) 6 SCC 599.
                              (5)                      cwp-221-2025.odt



      tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in
      matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long term
      ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the
      accused. It is further manifest from the said judgments that
      false implication by way of general omnibus allegations
      made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked
      would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this
      court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from
      proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband
      when no prima facie case is made out against them.”

10.     Similarly, in case of Sushil Kumar Sharma vs. Union of
India and others3, the Supreme Court observed in paragraph
no.19 as under :-

      “19. The object of the provision is prevention of the dowry
      meance. But as has been rightly contended by the petitioner
      many instances have come to light where the complaints are
      not bonafide and have filed with obligue motive. In such
      cases acquittal of the accused does not in all cases wipe out
      the ignomy suffered during and prior to trial. Sometimes
      adverse media coverage adds to the misery. The question,
      therefore, is what remedial measures can be taken to
      prevent abuse of the well-intentioned provision. Merely
      because the provision is constitutional and intra vires, does
      not give a licence to unscrupulous persons to wreck personal
      vendetta or unleash harassment. It may, therefore, become
      necessary for the legislature to find out ways how the
      makers of frivolous complaints or allegations can be
      appropriately dealt with. Till then the Courts have to take
      care of the situation within the existing frame work. As
      noted the object is to strike at the roots of dowry menace.
      But by misuse of the provision a new legal terrorism can be
      unleashed. The provision is intended to be used a shield
      and not assassins' weapon. If cry of "wolf" is made too often
      as a prank assistance and protection may not be available
      when the actual "wolf" appears. There is no question of
      investigating agency and Courts casually dealing with the
      allegations. They cannot follow any strait jacket formula in
      the matters relating to dowry tortures, deaths and cruelty.
      It cannot be lost sight of that ultimate objective of every
      legal system is to arrive at truth, punish the guilty and
      protect the innocent. There is no scope for any pre-
      conceived notion or view. It is strenuously argued by the
      petitioner that the investigating agencies and the courts
3   (2005) 6 SCC 281.
                               (6)                       cwp-221-2025.odt



      start with the presumption that the accused persons are
      guilty and that the complainant is speaking the truth. This
      is too wide available and generalized statement. Certain
      statutory presumption are drawn which again are
      reputable. It is to be noted that the role of the investigating
      agencies and the courts is that of watch dog and not of a
      bloodhound. It should be their effort to see that in innocent
      person is not made to suffer on account of unfounded,
      baseless and malicious allegations. It is equally
      indisputable that in many cases no direct evidence is
      available and the courts have to act on circumstantial
      evidence. While dealing with such cases, the law laid down
      relating to circumstantial evidence has to be kept in view.”


11.    The aforesaid exposition of law would show that misuse of

Section 498-A and possibility of over implication needs to be

checked by Courts.        The present case is an example of over

implication. The basis for making petitioners as accused is not

clear. The contents of charge-sheet are bereft to make out any

offence as against petitioners. In result, this Court finds that case

is made out to exercise inherent powers and prevent abuse of

process of law. Hence, following order is passed:

                                 ORDER

a.     Criminal Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer Clauses

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


b.     Rule is made absolute in above terms.


c.     Since Ms. Vishakha Bang, learned Advocate is appointed

through legal aid to represent respondent no.2, the Secretary, High
                            (7)                      cwp-221-2025.odt



Court Legal Services Sub-Committee, Aurangabad Bench do pay

fees of appointed counsel for respondent no.2 as per schedule.


                                     (S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR)
                                              JUDGE
Devendra/April-2026