Bombay High Court
Vaishnavi W/O Nikhil Malavatkar vs Nikhil Diliprao Malavatkar And Others on 20 November, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:32040
938 CriWP No.238.2024
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 238 OF 2024
VAISHNAVI W/O NIKHIL MALAVATKAR
VERSUS
NIKHIL DILIPRAO MALAVATKAR AND OTHERS
...
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Yashwant P. Jadhav
Advocate for Respondents : Mr. Satyajit S. Bora
...
CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.
Date : 20th November, 2025
ORDER :
-
1. The petitioner questions the judgment and order dated
12.04.2023 rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Dharashiv in
Criminal Revision Application No. 05 of 2023, quashing and setting
aside the order dated 19.03.2021 issuing process in Regular
Criminal Case No. 408 of 2022, rendered by the learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Osmanabad.
2. The assertions are made in the complaint that the
marriage between petitioner and respondent No. 1 was solemnized
on 07.07.2018 as per the customary rites and traditions. The
further assertion is that after some time, the respondents
subjected petitioner to domestic violence. The respondent No. 1 /
husband allegedly raised dispute on account of trivial issues. The
respondents also allegedly demanded amount of Rs. 50 lakhs from
parents of the petitioner. Thereafter, the complainant was driven
out of the matrimonial house on 07.11.2019. Resultantly, the
petitioner presented the private complaint on 08.01.2021 for
offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 323, 504 and 506
before the learned Magistrate.
3. Considering the complaint and verification statement of
the petitioner, the learned Magistrate passed the order issuing
process under Section 204 of Code of Criminal Procedure for the
aforesaid offences against original respondents No. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6
(present respondents), whereas the complaint was dismissed under
Section 203 of Code of Criminal Procedure against original
respondents No. 5, 7 and 8.
4. Raising an exception to the same, present respondents
preferred Criminal Revision Application No. 05 of 2023 before the
learned Sessions Court. The learned Sessions Judge allowed the
Revision Application recording that there is discrepancy between
the complaint and verification statement and same, even if both
were taken at face value and accepted in its entirety, no any
offence as alleged in the complaint was made out.
5. Hence, the petitioner approached this Court by way of
present petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of
India.
6. The learned counsel for petitioner submits that in the
wake of specific allegations, the Revisional Court is not satisfied to
interfere with the order issuing process. The Revisional Court
committed error while rendering the order under challenge and
failed to consider the reasons recorded by the learned Magistrate
while issuing process. Hence, prayed to allow the writ petition.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondents submits
that the petitioner left the matrimonial house on 07.11.2019 where
as the complaint is lodged on 08.01.2021, no explanation is offered
for the delay in lodging the complaint. It is further submitted that
without complying with the statutory mandate of approaching the
Officer of the rank of Superintendent of Police, the complaint is
filed. The variance in complaint and verification statement,
establishes the intent of the petitioner, ought to have been noted
by the learned Magistrate while passing the order of issue process.
These aspects were noted by the Revisional Court in proper
perspective while allowing the Revision Application.
8. In order to support the submissions, the learned
counsel for respondents has placed reliance on the following
judgments.
(i) Kahkashan Kausar and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and
Ors. (AIR 2022 SC 820)
(ii) Achin Gupta Vs. State of Haryana and Anr.
[(2025)3 SCC 756].
(iii) Satish Sudhakar Patil and Ors. Vs. The State of
Maharashtra and Ors. [(2017) SCC OnLine Bom
1170]
9. I have heard learned counsel for litigating side and
perused the entire record.
10. Admittedly, the petitioner left the matrimonial house on
07.11.2019 whereas the complaint is presented on 08.01.2021. No
explanation is put forth for the delay in filing the complaint.
11. At this juncture, it is necessary to reproduce the verdict
of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mrs. Priyanka Srivastava
and Anr Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.[(2015)6 SCC 287], which
reads as under :-
"21. .....We have already indicated that there has to be
prior applications under Section 154(1) and 154(3) while
filing a petition under Section 156(3). Both the aspects
should be clearly spelt out in the application and
necessary documents to that effect shall be filed. The
warrant for giving a direction that an the application
under Section 156(3) be supported by an affidavit so
that the person making the application should be
conscious and also endeavour to see that no false
affidavit is made. It is because once an affidavit is found
to be false, he will be liable for prosecution in
accordance with law. This will deter him to casually
invoke the authority of the Magistrate under Section
156(3). That apart, we have already stated that the
veracity of the same can also be verified by the learned
Magistrate, regard being had to the nature of allegations
of the case. We are compelled to say so as a number of
cases pertaining to fiscal sphere, matrimonial
dispute/family disputes, commercial offences, medical
negligence cases, corruption cases and the cases where
there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal
prosecution, as are illustrated in Lalita Kumari are being
filed. That apart, the learned Magistrate would also be
aware of the delay in lodging of the FIR."
12. In the light of the aforesaid verdict, the provisions of
Code of Criminal Procedure ought to have been followed. The
Petitioner, however, without approaching to the Higher Officer /
Authority, has taken recourse under Section 154(3) of CrPC, has
directly presented the complaint, de hors the mandate of Section
154(3) of CrPC. These aspects are taken into account by the
Revisional Court while allowing the Revision and dismissing the
complaint.
13. The submission put forth on behalf of the learned
counsel for respondents lends support from the judgments on
which reliance is placed, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has
underscored the need to consider only specific allegations in case
of matrimonial disputes before initiating criminal proceedings, the
same is ignored by the learned Magistrate while passing the order
of issue process.
14. It is well settled position of law that the Courts must
exercise caution while proceeding against the relatives in
matrimonial disputes. The relatives should not be roped in on the
basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their
involvement are made out. In the present case, perusal of record
indicates and establishes that no specific and distinct allegations
have been made and attributed against the respondents. The
allegations are vague and omnibus in nature.
15. In that view of the matter, no error could be noted in
the order rendered by the learned Sessions Judge. Permitting
criminal proceedings to continue against the respondents, will
result abuse of process of law and lead to a travesty of justice.
Hence, no case is made out to cause interference in the order
under challenge.
16. The writ petition sans merits and accordingly, the same
is dismissed.
(SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.)
Omkar Joshi
