Friday, 15, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Ganesh Mahadev Hajare And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 1212 Bom

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 1212 Bom
Judgement Date : 3 January, 2025

Bombay High Court

Ganesh Mahadev Hajare And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 3 January, 2025

Author: Vibha Kankanwadi
Bench: Vibha Kankanwadi
2025:BHC-AUG:747-DB
                                                   (1)
                                                                   cri.appln-2988-2023.odt
                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                             CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2988 OF 2023

                1.    Ganesh Mahadev Hajare
                      (Husband of informant)
                      Age-25 years, Occupation-Education,
                      R/o. Chakarwadi, Tq. & Dist. Beed

                2.    Mahadev Nagu Hajare
                      (Father in Law of informant)
                      Age-55 years, Occupation-Service,
                      R/o. Chakarwadi, Tq. & Dist. Beed.
                      At present C/o. Shubham Raut,
                      Behind Police Station, Neknoor, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

                3.    Ashabai Mahadev Hajare
                      (Mother in law of informant)
                      Age-50 years, Occupation-Housewife,
                      R/o. Chakarwadi, Tq. & Dist. Beed.
                      At present C/o. Subham Raut,
                      Behind Police Station, Neknoor,
                      Tq. & Dist. Beed                                     ...Applicants

                            VERSUS

                1.    The State of Maharashtra,
                      Through Officer Incharge,
                      Police Station Pimpalner,
                      Dist. Beed

                2.    Prerna Baburao Maswale @
                      Prerana Ganesh Hajare
                      Age-19 years, Occupation-Household,
                      R/o. Karalwadi, Tq. & Dist. Beed
                      Mob.No.9545690638                                 ... Respondents

                                                 ....
                Ms. Pooja S. Ingale h/f. Mr. S. J. Salunke, Advocate for the Applicants.
                Smt. R. P. Gour, APP for Respondent/State
                Mr. Y. L. Bidwe h/f. Mr. S. B. Bhosale, Advocate for Respondent No.2
                                                 ....
                                       (2)
                                                       cri.appln-2988-2023.odt
                         CORAM :            SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND
                                            ROHIT W. JOSHI, JJ.

                         DATED :            03 JANUARY, 2025

JUDGMENT (Per Rohit W. Joshi, J.):

-

1. The present application is filed under Section 482 of Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashment of FIR No.0048 of 2023

registered on 23.03.2023 with Pimpalner Police Station, District Beed

for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read

with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. Respondent No.2 is the informant. Applicant No.1 is husband

of respondent No.2 and applicant Nos.2 and 3 are her father-in-law

and mother-in-law respectively.

3. The application has been withdrawn on behalf of respondent

No.1-husband on 02.11.2023. The matter is taken up for consideration

with respect to case of applicant Nos.2 and 3.

4. Respondent No.2 has stated in the FIR that her marriage

with applicant No.1 was solemnized on 24.12.2021 and after the

marriage for a period of around one year the in-laws treated her well.

However, after the short time when her father-in-law fell ill everybody

started abusing her alleging that she has brought bad omen with her.

It is also alleged that the in-laws raised doubts with respect to her

cri.appln-2988-2023.odt character and made allegations with respect to the same frequently

and particularly when her relatives came to meet her. She alleges that

initially applicant No.1 had demanded a sum of Rs.1.5 lakhs for

purchasing drone camera. She alleges that the in-laws harassed her

physically and mentally pressing this demand and therefore, her father

was forced to give the said amount to applicant No.1. Having received

the said amount of Rs.1.5 lakhs, further amount of Rs.2 lakhs was

asked to be brought for making repayment of car loan. She again

alleges that she was physically and mentally harassed for not being

able to fulfill the said demand.

5. Applicant Nos.1 to 3 are all residing together. Respondent

No.2 has levelled direct allegations against all of them. The allegations

pertaining to demand for dowry indicate repeated demands. On one

occasion an amount of Rs.1.5 lakhs was paid by father of respondent

No.2 who succumbed to the pressure tactics adopted by the applicants

and thereafter again further demand was made for a sum of Rs. 2

lakhs. The allegations in the FIR are again reiterated in the 161

statements of parents and relatives of respondent No.2.

6. The learned Counsel for the applicants submits that the

allegations with respect to demand for dowry are not specific and that

the same have been levelled only in order to falsely implicate the

parents of estranged husband.

cri.appln-2988-2023.odt

7. As against this, Smt. R. P. Gour, the learned A.P. P. and Shri.

R. L. Bidwe, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2

urged that at the stage of consideration of an application for quashing

of FIR the allegations made in the FIR have to be accepted as true and

correct. The veracity thereof cannot be looked into at this stage. They

submit that the allegations are consistent and do not indicate any

attempt to falsely implicate the applicants.

8. Having heard the rival submissions and on perusal of the

record, we find that the applicants have failed to make out any case

for quashing of FIR and resultant prosecution in Regular Criminal

Case No.273 of 2023. Respondent No.2 has levelled clear allegations

with respect to demand for dowry. The demand for dowry was

satisfied on one occasion. As per her allegations and thereafter again a

demand was made for liquidating the loan for purchasing the car. In

view of said allegations which are further corroborated by statement

of the witnesses, we find that this is not a fit case for exercising our

inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing FIR and the

Regular Criminal Case registered against the applicants.

9. The Criminal Application is therefore rejected.

      (ROHIT .W. JOSHI)                  (SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI )
          JUDGE                                   JUDGE
A.G.Narwade
 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter