KHADIJA NURUDDIN SANADIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.

                                                                 10-CRWP-515-26+1.odt



          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                  CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
               CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                      WRIT PETITION NO. 515 OF 2026
1. Firoj Nuruddin Sanadi
   Age : 35 years, Occu.: Service,
2. Nuruddin Ali Sanadi
   Age : 66 years, Occu.: Farmer,
3. Minaj Nuruddin Sanadi
   Age : 45 years, Occu.: Homemaker,
  All R/o 298, Vitthal Chowk, Mouje Sangaon,
  Tq. Kagal, Dist. Kolhapur                             ..PETITIONERS
      VERSUS
1. State of Maharashtra
   Through – Rajarampuri Police Station
2. Farheen Firoj Sanadi
   Age: 34 years, Occu.: Nil,
   R/o Mali Colony, Takala, Kolhapur                    ..RESPONDENTS

                  WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 514 OF 2026
Khadija Nuruddin Sanadi
Age : 30 years, Occu.: Advocacy,
R/o 298, Vitthal Chowk, Mouje Sangaon,
Tq. Kagal, Dist. Kolhapur                               ..PETITIONER
      VERSUS
1. State of Maharashtra
   Through – Rajarampuri Police Station
2. Farheen Firoj Sanadi
   Age: 34 years, Occu.: Nil,
   R/o Mali Colony, Takala, Kolhapur                    ..RESPONDENTS
                                        ....
Mr. A.S. Raktade, a/w Mr. S.V. Patil, Advocate for petitioners
Mrs. P.S. Rane, A.P.P. for respondent no.1 – State
Mr. Y.S. Joshi, Advocate for respondent no. 2
Mr. P.P. Avade, P.H.C., Rajarampuri Police Station
                                        ....
                                     1 / 7
                                                                       10-CRWP-515-26+1.odt



                                            CORAM : ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.
                                            DATE : 03rd SEPTEMBER, 2026
ORAL JUDGMENT :

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

the consent of learned counsel for the parties and learned A.P.P. for the State at the

stage of admission. Perused the record.


2.         The petitioner/s invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash

the First Information Report, bearing No. 365 of 2026 dated 15th June, 2026,

registered against them with Rajarampuri Police Station, Dist. Kolhapur (for short

‘F.I.R.’) for the offences punishable under Sections 85, 115(2) and 352 of the

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘B.N.S.’), have preferred these petitions.


3.         In Writ Petition No. 515 of 2026, Petitioner No.1 is the husband of

Respondent No. 2 – informant. Petitioner Nos. 2 (Father-in-law) and 3 (Mother-

in-law) in Writ Petition No. 515 of 2026 and sole Petitioner (Sister-in-law) in Writ

Petition No. 514 of 2026 are the in-laws of Respondent No. 2 – informant.


4.         It is pertinent to note that during the course of the argument, learned

counsel for the Petitioners, on instructions, seeks leave to withdraw Writ Petition

(No. 515 of 2026) to the extent of Petitioner No.1 - Firoj Nuruddin Sanadi. His

statement is accepted.


5.         In view of the statement, Writ Petition No. 515 of 2026 stands partly

dismissed as withdrawn to the extent of Petitioner No. 1 - Firoj Nuruddin Sanadi.
                                    2 / 7
                                                                      10-CRWP-515-26+1.odt



6.           Concisely, facts of the case are as under :-

             On 15th June, 2026, Respondent No. 2 lodged a report against the

Petitioner/s alleging that they have subjected her to cruelty on account of demand

of dowry, as well as her husband beating her with a stick on account of demand of

dowry. When she made complaints to her parents-in-law, they ignored them and

asked her to resolve it among themselves. For other reasons also, her husband

used to abuse and beat her. Based on her complaint, the above-stated offence was

registered against the Petitioners. Being aggrieved by the same, the Petitioners

have preferred these petitions.


7.           Undisputedly, the Petitioner husband and Respondent No. 2 wife were

residing separately at Pune, and Respondent No. 2 was not residing with her in-

laws. So, prima facie, a question of harassment or Cruelty at the hands of the in-

laws does not arise. But their false implication in a matrimonial discord cannot be

ruled out.


8.           Learned A.P.P. submitted that during the pendency of these petitions,

yesterday, i.e. on 02nd September, 2026, the Investigating Officer has filed the

charge-sheet.


9.           Learned counsel for the Petitioners vehemently argued that except

against the husband, no allegations appear against the in-laws of Respondent No.

2 to attract the ingredients of Section 85 of B. N. S. He further canvassed that they

                                      3 / 7
                                                                     10-CRWP-515-26+1.odt



have been falsely implicated in the present crime to harass them and pressurise the

husband. Therefore, he urged for quashing of the F.I.R. as well as the charge-sheet

filed against the in-laws.


10.        On the other hand, learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 – informant,

despite granting an opportunity, failed to point out any specific allegation against

the in-laws which constitutes an offence punishable under Section 85 of the

B.N.S. He has only pointed out allegations against the husband.


11.        Similarly, learned A.P.P., during the arguments, tried to place on record

the supplementary statement of Respondent No. 2 – informant, which the

Investigating Officer recorded on the same day on which he recorded the F.I.R.,

i.e. on 15th June, 2026. Perusal of the said supplementary statement appears to be

more detailed than the F.I.R. The same is found inconsistent with the F.I.R.


12.        On a query put to learned A.P.P. whether the Investigating Officer has

taken an entry about recording of the said supplementary statement in the station

diary, on instructions from the Investigating Officer, who is present in the Court,

she submitted that he has not taken a station diary entry regarding recording of the

said supplementary statement of the informant. Moreover, no time is mentioned

for recording the said supplementary statement. Therefore, it cannot be taken into

consideration on that ground alone. The very fact itself casts doubt on the

Investigating Officer's recording of the supplementary statement on the same day.


                                   4 / 7
                                                                       10-CRWP-515-26+1.odt



13.          Even considering the said supplementary statement, prima facie it does

not reveal that she made any specific allegations against the in-laws which attract

ingredients of offence punishable under Section 85 of the B.N.S. Therefore, the

said supplementary statement is also hardly of any assistance to the prosecution in

support of its contention.


14.          It is pertinent to note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in catena of the

judgments, i.e. Dara Lakshmi Narayanna & Ors. Vs. State of Telangana & Anr. 1,

Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.2 and Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam &

Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. 3 have time and again held that if the contents of the

F.I.R. do not disclose specific allegations against the in-laws of the wife to make

them liable for bickering between respondent No.2 and her husband, except the

casual reference of their names, so also, by merely making the general allegations

that they involved for physical and mental torture of the informant/Respondant

No. 2 without any allegation of their active involvement or mentioning the single

incident against them, in such an eventuality, it cannot constitute an offence

punishable under Section 85 of the B.N.S.


15.           In the case at hand, bare perusal of the F.I.R. and the supplementary

statement, which the learned A.P.P. produced before the Court, prima facie does

not disclose that the specific allegations against the in-laws attract the ingredients

of Section 85 of the B.N.S. On the contrary, the allegations against the in-laws
1   2024 SCC OnLine SC 3682
2   2012 (10) SCC 741
3   (2022) 6 SCC 599
                                     5 / 7
                                                                      10-CRWP-515-26+1.odt



appear vague and general. No specific allegation appears against the in-laws, nor

is any role attributed to them in the F.I.R. or the supplementary statement recorded

by the informant.


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

Hon’ble Supreme Court as referred above, in my view, it would not be appropriate

to continue the proceedings before the learned Magistrate against the in-laws. The

continuation of proceedings against them would result in an abuse of the process

of law and would not serve the ends of justice. In consequence, it would be

appropriate, in exercise of power under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik

Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to quash and set aside the F.I.R. and filing of charge-

sheet pursuant to the same, in so far as the in-laws are concerned, i.e. Petitioner

Nos. 2 and 3 in Writ Petition No. 515 of 2026 and sole Petitioner in Writ Petition

No. 514 of 2026.


17.        As a result, Writ Petition No. 515 of 2026 is partly allowed to the extent

of Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, i.e. Nuruddin Ali Sanadi and Minaj Nuruddin Sanadi,

respectively, and dismissed as withdrawn against Petitioner No.1 - Firoj Nuruddin

Sanadi.

                                  And
           Writ Petition No. 514 of 2026 is allowed, in terms of prayer clause (A).


18.        Accordingly, First Information Report No. 365 of 2026, dated 15 th

June, 2026, registered with Rajarampuri Police Station, Dist. Kolhapur for the

                                   6 / 7
                                                                   10-CRWP-515-26+1.odt



offences punishable under Sections 85, 115(2) and 352 of the B.N.S. and the

charge-sheet filed pursuant to the same stands quashed to the extent of the in-

laws.


19.          Inform the learned Trial Court accordingly.

20.         The Rule is made partly absolute in the above terms.




        SUSHANT                                ( ABHAY J. MANTRI, J. )
SSD     SHARAYU
        DESHPANDE
        Digitally signed by
        SUSHANT SHARAYU
        DESHPANDE
        Date: 2026.09.04
        16:58:01 +0530




                                    7 / 7