Bombay High Court
Nilesh Suresh Borde And Others vs Priyanka W/O Nilesh Borde And Another on 4 September, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:23641
1 Cri.appln 941-2025.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 941 OF 2025
1. Nilesh s/o Suresh Borde, (Husband)
Age : 31 years, Occu. : Service,
R/o. : Dattanagar. Sidharth Colony,
Shrirampur, Tq. Shrirampur,
Dist. Ahmednagar.
2. Shila Suresh Borde, (Mother-in-law)
Age : 71 years, Occu. : Housewife,
R/o. : Dattanagar. Sidharth Colony,
Shrirampur, Tq. Shrirampur,
Dist. Ahmednagar.
3. Arun s/o Laxman Borde, (Uncle of Husband)
Age : 53 years, Occu. : Service,
R/o. : Jail Quarters, Room No. 261,
Jail Road, near Gotha Line, Yerwada,
Pune, Dist. Pune.
4. Sunita w/o Arun Borde, (Aunt of Husband)
Age : 44 years, Occu. : Housewife,
R/o. : Jail Quarters, Room No. 261,
Jail Road, near Gotha Line, Yerwada,
Pune, Dist. Pune.
5. Sunita w/o Sampat Kahirnar, (Sister-in-law)
Age : 41 years, Occu. : Service,
R/o. : Jukule Jalgaon Nwur, Nasik,
at present Santoshi Mata Nagar,
Near Sisodiya Building, Oimpalgaon Baswant,
Nasik, Dist. Nasik.
6. Sampat s/o Rambhau Khairnar, (Husband of Sister-in-law)
Age : 47 years, Occu. : Service,
R/o. : Jukule Jalgaon Nwur, Nasik,
1 of 10
2 Cri.appln 941-2025.odt
at present Santoshi Mata Nagar,
Near Sisodiya Building, Oimpalgaon Baswant,
Nasik, Dist. Nasik.
7. Savita w/o Gulab Kharat, (Sister-in-law)
Age : 40 years, Occu. : Housewife,
R/o. : 424A, Annabhau Sathe Nagar,
Kotul, Tq. Akole, Dist. Ahmednagar.
8. Yohita w/o Vivek Shelar, (Sister-in-law)
Age : 36 years, Occu. : Service,
R/o. : Primary Health Sub-Center Headquarter,
Ranjankhol, Tq. Rahata, Dist. Ahmednagar.
9. Shital w/o Laxman Adhagale, (Sister-in-law)
Age : 34 years, Occu. : Housewife,
R/o. : Ambethan, Khongade wasti,
Chakan MIDC, Near Balaji Park, Ambethan,
Dist. Pune.
10. Laxman s/o Shridhar Adhagale, (Husband of Sister-in-law)
Age : 39 years, Occu. : Pvt. Service,
R/o. : Ambethan, Khongade wasti,
Chakan MIDC, Near Balaji Park, Ambethan,
Dist. Pune.
11. Madhuri w/o Amar Salve, (Sister-in-law)
Age : 33 years, Occu. : Housewife,
R/o. : House No. 12A, Ganesh Nagar,
Nagardevale, Bhingar, Ahmednagar,
At present Bhimakoregaon,
Dist. Pune. .. Applicants
Versus
1. Priyanka w/o Nilesh Borde,
Age : 26 years, Occu. : Household,
R/o. : At present Katrad, Near Katrad
Grampanchayat, Tq. Rahuri,
Dist. Ahmednagar.
2 of 10
3 Cri.appln 941-2025.odt
2. Viraj s/o Nilesh Borde,
Age : 4 years, Occu. : Household,
R/o. : Dattanagar, Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmenagar,
At present Katrad, Near Katrad
Grampanchayat, Tq. Rahuri,
Dist. Ahmednagar. .. Respondents
Mr. Nitin S. Kadarale, Advocate for the Applicants.
Smt. Suvarna M. Zaware, Advocate for Respondent No. 1.
Respondent No. 2 served.
CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT, J.
Date on which reserved for order : 23rd July, 2025.
Date on which order pronounced : 04th September, 2025.
FINAL ORDER :-
. This application is filed seeking quashment of the
proceedings bearing Criminal M. A. No. 326/2023 filed under the
provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,
2005 (for short "D. V. Act"). A complaint is lodged by the present
respondents. Applicant No. 1 is the husband, applicant No. 2 is
mother-in-law, applicant No. 3 is uncle of husband, applicant No.
4 is aunt of husband, applicant Nos. 5, 7, 8, 9 & 11 are sisters-in-
law, applicant No. 6 is husband of applicant No. 5 and applicant
No. 10 is husband of applicant No. 9.
2. The respondents filed a complaint alleging domestic
3 of 10
4 Cri.appln 941-2025.odt
violence at the hands of the present applicants. It is alleged that,
applicant Nos. 5, 7, 8, 9 and 11 interfered with the family life of
respondent No. 1. Applicant Nos. 4 and 9 were allegedly
harassing respondent No. 1. Against applicant No. 3 it is alleged
that, he happens to be in police department and gives threats to
father of respondent No. 1. It is alleged that, the husband used to
suspect character of respondent No. 1. As per allegation
applicant No. 9 used to defame the image of respondent No. 1
stating that she had relations prior to marriage with some other
person. There was demand of dowry. Against applicant No. 8 it is
alleged that she happens to be nurse. When respondent No. 1 was
pregnant, she gave tablets to respondent No. 1 to abort. On these
allegations complaint came to be filed on 30.10.2023.
3. The learned J.M.F.C. issued summons. The applicants
thereafter approached this Court for quashing of the proceedings.
4. The learned advocate Mr. Kadarale for the applicants
vehemently argued that, there are no specific allegations against
any of the applicants. Except husband she never resided in a
domestic relationship with any of the applicants. A complaint
4 of 10
5 Cri.appln 941-2025.odt
came to be filed only after husband issued her a notice for
cohabitation on 15.05.2023. In the notice it is clearly stated that,
respondent No. 1 on her own left the matrimonial house in Diwali
2022. He has also filed H.M.P. No. 82/2020 in the Court of
learned C.J.S.D., Shrirampur seeking divorce on 08.06.2023 on
the ground of desertion and cruelty as she never cohabited with
him willingly. A decree of divorce is also passed. Now, the wife
has filed an appeal against decree of divorce and the same is
pending. It is the case that, even attempt was made before
Bharosa Cell to settle the dispute, however, no settlement could be
possible because of the attitude of respondent No. 1. The learned
advocate thus prays for allowing the application.
5. The learned advocate Smt. Zaware for respondents
vehemently argued that, there are specific allegations made in the
complaint. Applicant No. 3 is working in police. By using his
position he threatened father of respondent No. 1. She submits
that, against applicant No. 9 there is specific allegation that she
used to defame the respondent No. 1 in the relatives saying that
she had relations prior to marriage with some other person. There
is specific demand of Rs. 90,000/- (Rs. Ninety Thousand only) by
5 of 10
6 Cri.appln 941-2025.odt
applicant No. 2. Against sisters-in-law there is allegation that they
used to constantly come to her house and used to harass her. She
thus submits that, when clearly a case is made out, no indulgence
need to be shown. She prays for rejection of the application.
6. This Court by order dated 17.03.2025 recorded that, the
application is not pressed for applicant Nos. 1 and 2. The
question is thus now, as to whether a case is made out to quash
the proceedings so far as applicant Nos. 3 to 11 are concerned.
Against applicant No. 3 the allegation is that, he happens to be
police person and used to threat father of respondent No. 1. No
any specific date or event is given except this allegation. Against
applicant Nos. 5, 7, 8, 9 & 11, it is alleged that they used to beat
respondent No. 1 on a suspicion that she was chatting on mobile
with some other person. However, no specific date and time is
given. Further, it is alleged that they used to expect respondent
No. 1 to get up at 5.00 O'clock and to do household work. This
Court, however, finds that these allegations fall short of making
out a case under the D.V. Act. All the sisters-in-law are residing at
different places. The address of applicant No. 3 is of Pune. He is
in service. This Court thus finds that, he cannot be said to be a
6 of 10
7 Cri.appln 941-2025.odt
person in domestic relation with respondent No. 1.
7. The learned advocate for the applicants relied upon the
following judgments :
(i) Ganesh and others Vs. Sau. Nikita and others
reported in 2021 ALL MR (Cri) 3036.
(ii) Shyamlal Devda and others Vs. Parimala
reported in 2020 (3) SCC 14.
(iii) Mr. Prabhakar Mohite and Ors. Vs. The State
of Maharashtra and Ors. reported in 2018 (6)
Mh.LJ (Crl.) 478.
(iv) Prakash Vinayak Gaikwad and Ors. Vs. State
of Maharashtra and Anr. reported in 2020 (5)
Mh.LJ (Crl.) 499.
8. In the case of Ganesh and others (supra), a prayer for
quashing of complaint was entertained by this Court at Nagpur as
the applicants therein were residents of places away from place of
residence of complainant - wife. The allegation was that, when
applicants went to visit matrimonial house, some incidents of
7 of 10
8 Cri.appln 941-2025.odt
harassment had taken place. It was held that, the applicants were
not in domestic relationship with wife, nor they had lived in
shared household with wife and on that the proceeding was
quashed.
9. In the case of Shyamlal Devda and others (supra), the
Hon'ble Apex Court held that, before issuing notice, the Court has
to be prima facie satisfied that there are instances of domestic
violence. In the said case, there were no specific allegations
against the relatives of the husband. It was held that the
proceedings under the domestic violence are liable to be quashed.
10. In the case of Mr. Prabhakar Mohite and Ors. (supra), this
Court considered that the allegations against uncle and aunt of the
husband were vague and general in nature. No specific role was
attributed to them. At no point of time they lived in shared
household and therefore, they cannot be said to be persons in
domestic relationship with wife. In that view of the matter this
Court, with the aid of inherent powers under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure quashed the complaint.
11. In the case of Prakash Vinayak Gaikwad and Ors. (supra),
8 of 10
9 Cri.appln 941-2025.odt
this Court held that, visits for short duration to the house of wife
is not sufficient to rope the persons in the proceedings under the
D.V. Act.
12. Coming to the facts of the present case, this Court finds that
the allegations are mainly against the husband and mother-in-law.
The application to their extent is already withdrawn. The
allegations are vague against applicant No. 3. The only allegation
is that he is using his influence being in the police department.
Against applicant No. 8 though there appears to be allegation that
she has given tablet thereby aborting pregnancy of respondent
No. 1, it is seen that this allegation is also vague. It is not clear
when that incident took place.
13. Looking to the submissions and the material it is also seen
that, the complaint under the D.V. Act is filed much after the
husband sent a notice to wife calling her to resume cohabitation.
In spite of such notice it is seen that wife did not come for
cohabitation and it is thereafter the husband is required to file
proceeding for divorce i.e. H.M.P. No. 82/2020 in the Court of
learned C.J.S.D., Shrirampur and it is thereafter the complaint is
9 of 10
10 Cri.appln 941-2025.odt
filed. It does appear that the proceeding is filed as counter blast
to the divorce proceedings. Till that period she had not filed any
complaint. This further strengthens the doubt that the proceeding
is filed only as a counter blast.
14. Considering all above this Court finds that, a case is made
out to quash the proceedings so far as applicant Nos. 3 to 11 are
concerned. Criminal application is, therefore, allowed in terms of
prayer clause (B). The proceeding of Criminal M. A. No.
326/2023 filed under the D. V. Act pending before the learned
J.M.F.C., Rahuri stands quashed and set aside to the extent above.
15. With this, criminal application stands disposed of.
( KISHORE C. SANT, J. )
P.S.B.
10 of 10
