RAJASHREE PANDURANG KSHIRSAGAR AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

                                                               7-WP-4613-2025-CR-J.odt




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                  CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
               CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                  WRIT PETITION NO. 4613 OF 2025

1)    Rajashree Pandurang Kshirsagar             ]
      Age: 60y, Occ:Household,                   ]
      R/o: Plot No. 17, Swapnapurti              ]
      Ganeshkrupa Society, Khed Road,            ]
      New Vikas Nagar, Satara.                   ]
2)    Shri. Pandurang Khashaba Kshirsagar        ]
      Age: 65y, Occ: Retired,                    ]
      R/o: Plot No. 17, Swapnapurti              ]
      Ganeshkrupa Society, Khed Road,            ]
      New Vikas Nagar, Satara.                   ]
3)    Mrs. Smita Mahesh Sapkale @                ]
      Miss. Smita Pandurang Kshirsagar           ]
      Age: 37y, Occ:Household,                   ]
      R/o: Nisarg Colony, Navare Nagar,          ]
      Ambarnath (E), Dist. Thane                 ]
4)    Shri. Sagar Sunil Bansode                  ]
      Age: 29y, Occ: Service,                    ]
      R/o: Vanvaswadi, near Laxmi           mata ]
      Mandir, Krishnanagar, Khed,                ]
      Dist.: Satara,                             ]
5)    Mrs. Reshma Sandeep Waghmare @             ]
      Miss. Reshma Pandurang Kshirsagar          ]
      Age: 38y, Occ: Household,                  ]
      R/o : E – 16 Bldg, Al Zahiyah road         ]
      Abu Dhabi, U.A.E.                          ]
6)    Shri. Sandeep Sureshchandra Waghmare       ]
      Age: 41 y, Occ: Service,                   ]
      R/o : E – 16 Bldg, Al Zahiyah road         ]
      Abu Dhabi, U.A.E.                          ] … Petitioners
                                                   (Accused Nos. 2 to 7)
              Versus
1)    The State of Maharashtra                   ]
      Through Vijapur Naka Police Station        ]
      Solapur.                                   ]
Shubham                                                                    Page 1 of 8
                                                                 7-WP-4613-2025-CR-J.odt




2)    Smt. Pooja Prashant Kshirsagar            ]
      Age: 31 years, Occ: Household,            ]
      R/o Plot No. 403, Shri Vishnu Heights ]
      Near Vision English Medium School, ]
      Nare, Pune Presently R/at : Plot No. 203, ]
      Lokmanya Nagar, Mazarechhadi, Solapur. ] … Respondents.

                                    …
Mr. Ganesh T. Jadhav, Advocate for Petitioners.

Ms. Priyanka S. Rane, APP for Respondent No. 1-State.

Ms. Kavita P. Shinde, Advocate for Respondent No. 2.
                                    …

                                 CORAM : ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.
                                 DATE  : OCTOBER 01, 2026
ORAL JUDGMENT :

1.           Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the

consent of the learned Advocates for the respective parties.

2.           The Petitioners have invoked Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “Cr.P.C.”), seeking quashing of the First

Information Report bearing C.R. No. 0002 of 2025 registered with Vijapur

Naka Police Station, Solapur City, Solapur (for short, “the FIR”), for the

offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 read with

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “IPC”), as well as the

proceedings i.e. Regular Criminal Case No.1136 of 2025 pending before the

learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Solapur arising out of the said FIR.



Shubham                                                                      Page 2 of 8
                                                                7-WP-4613-2025-CR-J.odt



3.          Respondent No. 2-Pooja lodged the report against the Petitioners

and her husband-Prashant, alleging that they had subjected her to cruelty by

taunting her that she is barren and unable to conceive a child. It is also

alleged that, sometime in the year 2024, her husband had taken her to the

house of Petitioner No. 5-Reshma for doing household work such as washing

clothes and utensils and thereby caused cruelty to her. They also abused her

and drove her out of the house. Therefore, she lodged the report.

4.          Pursuant to the report, the investigation was conducted, and the

police filed a charge-sheet before the Trial Court. The charge-sheet is

numbered as RCC No. 1136 of 2025 and is pending before the Trial Court.

5.          Learned Advocate for the Petitioners vehemently contended that

the allegations against the Petitioners are vague, omnibus and general in

nature and that no specific role has been attributed to the Petitioners in the

FIR. Therefore, the allegations made by Respondent No. 2 are reckless and

motivated. He further submitted that Respondent No. 2 was residing with her

husband, Prashant, at Pune, whereas her in-laws reside at Satara, Abu Dhabi,

Ulhasnagar, and Ambernath; therefore, the question of their having subjected

her to ill-treatment does not arise. However, Respondent No. 2 made false

allegations against them to implicate them in the present crime with a view to

pressurising her husband to take her back with him. Therefore, he urged for

quashing of the FIR and the proceedings.

Shubham                                                                     Page 3 of 8
                                                                    7-WP-4613-2025-CR-J.odt



6.                On the other hand, the learned APP for Respondent No. 1-State

and learned Advocate for Respondent No. 2 strongly opposed the Petition,

contending that in the FIR, it is alleged that the Petitioners taunted

Respondent No. 2 on the ground that she is barren and unable to conceive a

child. It is further alleged that her husband asked her to bring a four-wheeler

from her father. Her husband took away her streedhan from her possession

and abused and assaulted her at the instigation of the Petitioners. He drove

her out of the house at the instigation of the Petitioners. Therefore, they

submitted that the ingredients of Section 498-A of the IPC are attracted

against the Petitioners and, as such, they urged for dismissal of the Petition.

7.               Having heard the rival contentions of the parties and gone

through the record, more particularly the FIR, as pointed out by the learned

Advocates for the Petitioners and Respondent No. 2, it appears that the

allegations against the Petitioners are vague, omnibus and general in nature.

Such as:

          ß माझी सासुसासरे व नंनद तसेच माÖ या सासरी सातारा येथे राह्यास असणारा
          माझा मावस िदर सागर बनसोडे असे सव जण िमळु न मला तुला मुल बाळ का
          हाेत नाही तु वांझाेटी आहेस तुÖ यात शारीरीक दोष अस्यामुळे तुला कधीच
          मुल होणार नाही तु   iz’kkaryk घट्फोट दे असे ्हणुन माझा मानिसक व
          शारीरीक छळ कर्यास सुूवात केली तसेच मला अं्यंत घाणेरडया भाषेत
          िशवीगाळ देखील करत असत ्यां्या या ¥klkeqGs मी माÖ यावरती वैदयकीय
          उपचार करणेकरीता माÖ या आई विडलाकडु न पैसे घेवुन माÖ यावर तसेच पती
          iz’kkar यां्यावर देखील वैदयकीय उपचार केले आहेत-Þ
Shubham                                                                         Page 4 of 8
                                                                  7-WP-4613-2025-CR-J.odt



8.        Bare perusal of the allegations, it does not appear that any specific

role has been attributed to the Petitioners in the FIR as to what they had

done; rather, the allegations are general and omnibus in nature. The second

allegation, on which the learned APP harp, is that Petitioner No. 5, at whose

house her husband took her, had kept her at the said house at Badlapur,

Kalyan, where she was asked to do household work such as washing clothes

and utensils. However, prima facie, I do not find substance in the said

allegation. Apart from that, even assuming that she was asked to wash clothes

and utensils, such an act does not constitute the ingredients of Section 498-A

of the IPC and cannot be termed as cruelty within the meaning of Section

498-A of the IPC.

9.        Moreover, Respondent No. 2 has not mentioned the time, date, place or

manner in which the alleged harassment occurred. Thus, the FIR and the

entire charge-sheet fail to disclose the commission of an offence punishable

under Section 498-A of the IPC against the present Petitioners.

10.       It is also worth noting that Respondent No.2 was residing with her

husband at Pune, whereas her in-laws were/are residing at Satara, Abu Dhabi,

Ulhasnagar and Ambernath. Sometimes, she used to visit her in-laws’ house

at Satara, and on one occasion, it is alleged that she resided at the house of

Petitioner No.5 at Badlapur. Thus, it seems that she was not living with them.

So, the question of causing ill-treatment’s at their hands does not arise.

Shubham                                                                       Page 5 of 8
                                                                           7-WP-4613-2025-CR-J.odt



11.                In such an eventuality, in my view, mere vague and omnibus

allegations that the Petitioners instigated the husband of Respondent No. 2 to

abuse and assault her, as well as drove her out of the house, without

disclosing any specific role played by them, cannot lead to a conclusion that

they had subjected Respondent No. 2 to cruelty on the ground that she was

unable to conceive a child or had harassed her with a view to forcing her to

meet an unlawful demand for property.

12.                Besides, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a catena of judgments,

such as:

       (i)       Geeta Mehrotra and another versus State of U.P. and another1,

       (ii)      Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam and others versus State of Bihar and
       others,2

       iii)      Dara Lakshmi Narayana & others versus State of Telangana & Another,3


             After considering the various aspects of the matrimonial disputes, it has

been held that the allegations of harassment against the husband’s close

relatives, who had been living in different cities and had never visited, or had

rarely visited, the place where the complainant resided, would have an

entirely different consideration. In such circumstances, the complainant’s

allegations must be scrutinised with great care and circumspection to

ascertain the truth.



1     2012 (10) SCC 741
2     (2022) 6 SCC 599
3     2024 SCC OnLine SC 3682
Shubham                                                                                Page 6 of 8
                                                                  7-WP-4613-2025-CR-J.odt



13.           In the case at hand, it is undisputed that the in-laws are residing

separately in different cities and that Respondent No. 2 used to visit her in-

laws’ house rarely. Considering the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in the above judgments, the allegations in the FIR prima

facie do not appear sufficient to constitute an offence under Section 498-A of

the IPC against them.

14.           In the light of the aforesaid discussion and the law laid down by

the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in my view, it would not be appropriate to

continue with the proceedings against the Petitioners before the learned Trial

Court. The continuation of the proceedings against them would amount to an

abuse of the process of law and would not serve the ends of justice.

Therefore, it would be appropriate to exercise the inherent powers of this

Court to quash the FIR and the proceedings pending against the Petitioners

before the learned Trial Court in RCC No. 1136 of 2025.

15.           As a result, the Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a)

and (b), to the extent of the Petitioners only.

16.           Accordingly, the FIR bearing No. 2/2025 registered with Vijapur

Naka Police Station, Solapur City, Solapur under Sections 498A, 323, 504,

506, 34 IPC, and the R. C. C. No. 1136/2025 pending before the learned

Judicial Magistrate First Class, Solapur, are hereby quashed and set aside

insofar as they concern the present Petitioners, i.e. (Accused Nos. 2 to 7).

Shubham                                                                       Page 7 of 8
                                                                           7-WP-4613-2025-CR-J.odt



               17.       The Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as to

               costs.

               18.       Inform the concerned Court accordingly.

               19.       The Petition stands disposed of in the above terms.




                                                               (ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.)



         Digitally
         signed by
         TALLE
TALLE    SHUBHAM
SHUBHAM ASHOKRAO
ASHOKRAO Date:
         2026.10.05
         14:35:12
         +0530




               Shubham                                                                 Page 8 of 8