Bombay High Court
Akshay Vinayak Pawar And Others vs Puja W/O Akshay Pawar, on 4 September, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:23643
1 Cri.appln 4322-2023.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4322 OF 2023
1. Akshay s/o Vinayak Pawar, (Husband)
Age : 30 years, Occu. : Nil,
R/o. Flat No. 13 E/2 Apartment,
Vision City Kanchanwadi, Aurangabad.
2. Vinayak s/o Nivruti Pawar, (Father-in-law)
Age : 62 years, Occu. : Service,
R/o. Flat No. 13, 1/2 Apartment,
Vision City Kanchanwadi, Aurangabad.
3. Mangal w/o Vinayak Pawar, (Mother-in-law)
Age : 50 years, Occu. : household,
R/o. As above.
4. Pritam s/o Vinayak Pawar, (Brother-in-law)
Age : 26 years, Occu. : P. Service,
R/o. 1504, H2, Godrej Elements, Phase-1,
Hinjewadi, Pune 411057.
5. Murlidhar s/o Maroti Asabe, (Father of mother-in-law)
Age : 78 years, Occu. : Nil,
R/o. At post Warapgaon,
Tq. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed.
6. Gangubai w/o Murlidhar Asabe, (Mother of mother-in-law)
Age : 73 years, Occu. : Nil,
R/o. At post Warapgaon,
Tq. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed. .. Applicants
Versus
Puja w/o Akshay Pawar,
Age : 27 years, Occu. : Household,
R/o. At post Tandulwadi,
Tq. Kallam, Dist. Osmanabad. .. Respondent
1 of 7
2 Cri.appln 4322-2023.odt
Mr. Ganesh J. Kore, Advocate for the Applicants.
Mr. V. D. Salunke, Advocate for sole Respondent.
CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT, J.
Date on which reserved for order : 22nd July, 2025.
Date on which order pronounced : 04th September, 2025.
FINAL ORDER :-
. This application is for quashing of the complaint filed under
the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (for short
"D.V. Act") by the respondent against the present applicants
bearing PWDVA Application No. 13/2023 pending in the Court at
Kallam, District Osmanabad. The applicant No. 1 is the husband of
respondent, applicant Nos. 2 and 3 are father in law and mother
in law respectively, applicant No. 4 is brother in law, applicant
Nos. 5 is father of mother in law and applicant No. 6 is mother of
mother in law of the respondent.
2. The facts in short giving rise to the application are as under :
3. The respondent married to applicant No. 1 on 06.01.2021. It
is alleged that, in the marriage dowry of Rs. 7,00,000/- (Rs. Seven
Lakhs only) and gold of Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rs. Fifteen Lakhs only)
was given. An amount was also spent on the marriage. Further
2 of 7
3 Cri.appln 4322-2023.odt
allegation shows that there was demand of further amount of
Rs. 6,00,000/- (Rs. Six Lakhs only). On such demand she was
assaulted by the husband. All others abused the respondent.
Further allegation shows that, on 12.02.2022 she was driven out
of the home. With these allegations the respondent initially filed a
complaint in police station Kallam, District Osmanabad bearing
FIR No. 0423/2022 for the offences punishable under Sections
498-A, 323, 504, 506 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for
short "I.P.C."). The respondent thereafter filed proceeding under
the D.V. Act. The allegations which are made in complaint under
Section 498-A of the I.P.C. are also made in this application.
Particulars were given about transfer of the amount to the account
of husband by the parents of the respondent. The applicants have
approached this Court for quashing of the proceeding under the
D.V. Act.
4. The learned advocate Mr. Kore for the applicants vehemently
argued that, there is already a divorce that took place between the
parties. The husband had filed petition on 23.06.2022 for divorce
and since thereafter the respondent is not residing with the
husband and in laws. The respondent has changed some
3 of 7
4 Cri.appln 4322-2023.odt
allegations and levelled new allegations which were not there in
the complaint under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. There are no
averments against the applicants except husband. He submits that
the complaint filed under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. is already
quashed by the Division Bench of this Court in Criminal
Application No. 4031/2022 where the very same allegations were
made by the wife. The proceeding deserves to be quashed and set
aside.
5. The learned advocate Mr. Salunke for respondent
vehemently argued that, proceedings under Section 498-A of the
I.P.C. and under the D.V. Act, these are two different proceedings.
There are specific allegations made in the complaint about the
husband and brother in law. In a reply he submits that the trial is
required to go into allegations. There is material to show that the
amount is transferred to the account of the husband. The
applicants have taken contradictory stand. He invites attention to
the annexures annexed to his reply. He thus submits that the
application deserves to be dismissed.
6. This Court has gone through the application and the reply.
4 of 7
5 Cri.appln 4322-2023.odt
This Court has also gone through the application under the D.V.
Act. On going through the application it is seen that there are
some allegations against the husband with sufficient details
attracting the provisions of the D.V. Act. If those allegations are
taken as it is, this certainly would be sufficient requiring a trial.
This Court thus finds that, against husband there is certainly a
case made out to continue the proceedings. So far as other
relatives are concerned, this Court finds that the respondent has
added even the parents of mother-in-law who are quite age old
persons. They are not staying together. There are no sufficient
averments to show that father-in-law and brother-in-law are
staying in domestic relationship with the respondent. Taking the
allegations as it is also this Court finds that, no case is made out to
proceed against other applicants. This Court has seen the
judgment in Criminal Application No. 4031/2022. From the
judgment it is clearly seen that the very same allegations were
made by the respondent in the complaint under Section 498-A of
the I.P.C. Considering that case, this Court was convinced. The
Division Bench of this Court quashed the proceeding under
Section 498-A of the I.P.C. recording that there is no much
5 of 7
6 Cri.appln 4322-2023.odt
substance in the allegations. There the proceeding is quashed
even against the husband.
7. This Court finds some substance in the submission of
learned advocate Mr. Salunke for the respondent that in the
proceedings under the D.V. Act, the evidence required is not of the
quality as accepted in complaint under Section 498-A of the I.P.C.
The purpose of both the enactments is different. Though the
allegation may not be sufficient to try the accused for the offence
under Section 498-A of the I.P.C., however, the same would be
sufficient to proceed under the provisions of the D.V. Act. This
Court, therefore, finds that the proceeding against the husband
cannot be said to be an abuse of process of law. So far as
applicant Nos. 2 to 6 are concerned, this Court finds that, certainly
continuance of proceeding against these applicants would be an
abuse of process of law. Hence, the following order :
ORDER
(i) Criminal application stands partly allowed.
(ii) The proceeding of PWDVA No. 13/2023 pending in the
Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kallam, is hereby
quashed and set aside to the extent of applicant Nos. 2 to 6. The
6 of 7
7 Cri.appln 4322-2023.odt
proceeding to continue to the extent of husband i.e. applicant
No. 1.
(iii) Considering that the proceeding is of 2023, the learned Trial
Judge is requested to dispose of the proceeding as early as
possible and preferably within one year from today.
(iv) With this, criminal application stands disposed of.
( KISHORE C. SANT, J. )
P.S.B.
7 of 7
