Bombay High Court
Vikas Dattatray Bansode vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 23 June, 2025
Author: A. S. Gadkari
Bench: A. S. Gadkari
2025:BHC-AS:26144-DB
Osk 7-Wp-4473-2024.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 4473 OF 2024
Shri Vikas Dattatray Bansode ]
Age : 30 years, Occ. Student, ]
R/o. Shram Saphalya Niwas, ]
Savitribai Phule Housing Society, ]
Nandani Road, Sambhaji Nagar, ]
Jaysingpur, District Kolhapur ] ... Petitioner
V/s.
1. The State of Maharashtra ]
Through Fouzdari Chawadi Police Station, ]
Solapur. ]
2. Sou. Pooja Suhel Bansode ]
Age : 31 years, Occ. Teacher, ]
R/o. C/o. Shri Nagraj Randive, 10A, ]
Dharmasi Line, Murarji Peth, Solapur ] ... Respondents
_______________________________________
Mr. Vijay Killedar for Petitioner.
Ms. Savita M. Yadav, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1-State.
Ms. Archismati Chandramore for Respondent No.2.
_______________________________________
CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND
RAJESH S. PATIL, JJ.
DATE : 23rd June 2025.
JUDGMENT ( Per : A. S. GADKARI, J.) :
-
1) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and with the consent of
learned Advocates for the parties heard finally.
Osk 7-Wp-4473-2024.doc
2) By the present Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the Petitioner, younger brother-in-law of Respondent No.2, is seeking
quashment of R.C.C. No. 638 of 2024 pending on the file of learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class (Court No.2), Solapur, arising out of CR No. 0078 of
2024, dated 9th February 2024, registered with Faujdar Chavadi Police Station,
Solapur, under Sections 498-A, 354, 504 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code,
qua the Petitioner.
3) Heard Mr. Killedar, learned Advocate for Petitioner, Ms. Yadav,
learned A.P.P. for Respondent No.1-State and Ms. Chandramore, learned
Advocate for Respondent No.2. Perused entire record produced before us.
4) Perusal of record indicates that, Respondent No.2 had lodged the
crime in question against her husband, mother-in-law, brothers-in-law and
sister-in-law under the aforestated sections. The offence alleged against the
Petitioner is predominantly under Sections 498A read with 34 of I.P.C..
4.1) A minute perusal of F.I.R. and other record clearly indicates that, a
generic and omnibus allegation of demand of money for starting a pathology
lab by the Petitioner along with other accused persons on two occasions is
made. Apart from that, there is no allegation against the Petitioner in the
entire Chargesheet.
5) The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with situations akin to
which arises in the present matter, in a recent decision in the case of Mamidi
Anil Kumar Reddy V/s. State of A.P., reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 127, in
Osk 7-Wp-4473-2024.doc
para Nos.14 & 15 has held as under :
"14. ... ... ... A bare perusal of the complaint, statement of
witnesses' and the charge-sheet shows that the allegations
against the Appellants are wholly general and omnibus in
nature; even if they are taken in their entirety, they do not
prima-facie make out a case against the Appellants. The
material on record neither discloses any particulars of the
offenses alleged nor discloses the specific role/allegations
assigned to any of the Appellants in the commission of the
offenses.
15. The phenomenon of false implication by way of general
omnibus allegations in the course of matrimonial disputes
is not unknown to this Court. In Kahkashan Kausar alias
Sonam v. State of Bihar, [(2022) 6 SCC 599], this Court
dealt with a similar case wherein the allegations made by
the complainant-wife against her in-laws u/s. 498A and
others were vague and general, lacking any specific role
and particulars. The court proceeded to quash the FIR
against the accused persons and noted that such a
situation, if left unchecked, would result in the abuse of
the process of law."
6) After perusing entire record it emerges that, the allegations made
against the Petitioner are generic and omnibus in nature and he has been
implicated in the present crime only because he is younger brother of the
husband of Respondent No.2. After applying the ratio laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of (i) Kahkashan Kausar (supra) and (ii)
Osk 7-Wp-4473-2024.doc
Mamidi Anil Kumar Reddy (supra), we are of the considered view that, the
alleged crime against the Petitioner deserves to be quashed and is accordingly
quashed.
7) Petition is accordingly allowed in terms of prayer clause (b).
8) Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
( RAJESH S. PATIL, J. ) ( A.S. GADKARI, J. )
OMKAR SHIVAHAR
SHIVAHAR KUMBHAKARN
KUMBHAKARN Date:
2025.07.01
18:16:34 +0530
