Bombay High Court
Rushikesh Rajendra Naikwade And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 8 September, 2025
Author: Vibha Kankanwadi
Bench: Vibha Kankanwadi
2025:BHC-AUG:24328-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1151 OF 2023
1] Rushikesh s/o Rajendra Naikwade
Age: 22 years, occu. Private Job,
R/o. Dhangar Galli, Shevgaon,
Ahmednagar
(Cousin brother of husband of the complainant)
2] Rajendra s/o Dashrath Naikwade
Age: 47 years, occu. Private Job,
R/o. Dhangar Galli, Shevgaon,
Ahmednagar
(Maternal uncle of husband of the complainant)
3] Ushabai w/o. Ashok Gore
Age: 71 years, Occu. Household
R/o. Eknath Gore House no.16,
Hamal Galli, Tq. Paithan,
Dist. Aurangabad.
(maternal aunt of husband of the Complainant)
4] Krishna s/o Ashok Gore,
Age: 38 years, occu. Service,
R/o. Hamal Galli, Tq. Paithan,
Dist. Aurangabad.
(Cousin brother of husband of the Complainant)
5] Abhijit s/o Babasaheb Jadhav,
Age: 27 years, Occu. Private Job/Education,
R/o. Flat No. 302, Kate Wasti Road, Punawala,
Pimpri Chinchwad
(Brother-in-law of the complainant)
6] Bharti w/o. Babasaheb Jadhav,
Age: 52 years, Occu. Government Job
R/o. Flat No. 104, Shivam Colony,
Anand Vihar near Ganesh Colony
Cri. Appln. 1151-2023.odt 1 of 14
Savedi Ahmednagar.
(Mother-in-law of the complainant)
7] Ajinkya s/o Babasaheb Jadhav,
Age: 30 years, Occu. Private Job
R/o. Flat No. 302, Kate Wasti Road, Punawala,
Pimpri Chinchwad
(Husband of the complainant)
..APPLICANTS
VERSUS
1] The State of Maharashtra
Through: Police Station Cidco
Aurangabad (City), Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad.
2] Ankita w/o. Ajinkya Jadhav
Age: 25 years, Occu. Household,
R/o. Avishkar Colony, N-6, Cidco,
Aurangabad, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad.
..RESPONDENTS
(Resp. No. 2 is the
Orig. Complainant)
Mr. Angad kanade h/f Mr. P. S. Dikle, Advocate for Applicants
Ms. P. R. Bharaswadkar, APP for Respondent No. 1
Mr. P. A. Bharat, Advocate for Respondent No. 2
CORAM : Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi &
Hiten S. Venegavkar, JJ.
DATE : 08th September, 2025
JUDGMENT (PER : Hiten S. Venegavkar, J) :
-
1. Rule.
Cri. Appln. 1151-2023.odt 2 of 14
2. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3. After hearing learned Advocate for applicants for sometime, he
submitted that he will withdraw the application on behalf of applicant No. 7
who is the husband of the original complainant.
4. Accordingly, the application is dismissed as withdrawn in respect
of applicant No. 7.
5. With consent of all the parties, Criminal Application No.
1151/2023 is taken up for hearing and final disposal in respect of applicant
Nos. 1 to 6.
6. The present application is filed under Section 482 of Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C") by the original accused in First
Information Report (for short "F.I.R") No. 0075 of 2023 dated 10.02.2023
registered with Cidco Police Station, Aurangabad city, Tq. and Dist.
Aurangabad for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506
read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short "I.P.C") and Section 3
and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. After completion of the investigation,
Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet bearing No. 500 of 2023 before
the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class (for Short "JMFC"), Aurangabad
Cri. Appln. 1151-2023.odt 3 of 14
which then culminated into Regular Criminal Case No. 11 of 2024. The said
criminal case as on today is pending on the file of JMFC, Aurangabad. As the
charge sheet was filed during the pendency of the present criminal application.
The applicants through their Advocate have carried out amendment on
28.02.2024, thereby challenging the charge sheet along with consequential case
no. R.C.C./11/2024, pending on the file of JMFC, Aurangabad, Dist.
Aurangabad, which has been annexed at Exhibit 'D' to the present application.
7. Respondent No. 2 - Ankita Ajinkya Jadhav, who is the original
complainant was married to respondent No. 7 on 22.04.2021. It is alleged that
in her marriage, her father had gifted 55 grams of Gold Ornaments and certain
household articles worth about Rs. 12,00,000/-. According to the complainant,
she was treated properly for few months during initial days of the marriage, but
thereafter, she was subjected to harassment and taunts on account of her looks
and also on account of her father not giving sufficient dowry in the marriage. It
is further alleged by respondent No. 2 that her husband use to taunt her on her
looks saying that he married her only to fulfill his mother's wish and he has no
intention of spending his entire life with her. The complaint also levels certain
allegations pertaining to demand of Rs. 10,00,000/- for the purpose of
purchasing flat by the accused persons and in order to get the demand satisfied,
they physically and verbally abused and threatened respondent No. 2 with
Cri. Appln. 1151-2023.odt 4 of 14
divorce. It is further alleged by respondent No. 2 that even when they had
shifted to Pune, the harassment at the hands of husband, mother-in-law and
brother-in-law continued. While giving some specifications, she makes
reference to an incident dated 18.05.2022 alleging that she was assaulted and
drove out of the matrimonial house by the accused persons. She returned to
Aurangabad and made complaint about the harassment at the hands of accused
persons with her parents. As she had gone physically weak, she was taken to
M.G.M. Hospital at Aurangabad and was given medical treatment. She further
alleges that in order to save her marriage and also to prevent harassment at the
hands of the accused persons, her father paid Rs. 1,50,000/- in cash and also
gave 50 Grams of Gold to the husband. However, respondent No. 2 states that
the harassment did not stop and it continued demanding the remaining amount
of dowry. She, therefore, approached Women's Grievance Cell (Police
Commissioner woman complaint Ayog) and filed a complaint. Eventually even
the present F.I.R came to be lodged on 10.02.2023.
8. Perusal of the record shows that on 09.11.2023 a supplementary
statement of respondent No. 2 was recorded, wherein along with all the
allegations made in the F.I.R, an additional allegation alleging illicit relations
of accused husband with other woman were also made. It was alleged that
when respondent No. 2 tried to confront her husband about the said illicit
Cri. Appln. 1151-2023.odt 5 of 14
relation, he verbally abused and assaulted her. The allegations of assault and
verbal abuse are also weighed in the said statement against the accused who
are brother-in-law and maternal uncle.
9. On completion of investigation, charge sheet came to be filed and,
therefore, R.C.C. No.11/2024 came to be registered which is now pending for
trial on the file of JMFC, Aurangabad
10. Learned counsel for the applicants argued that the allegations
against the applicant No. 1 to 6 are absolutely vague and ambiguous. He
submitted that applicant No. 1 to 4 are distant relatives residing in different
cities and do not have any day-today contact with the complainant or her
husband. As they are residing separately, there is no question of they coming
and harassing her as tried to be alleged by respondent No. 2 in the F.I.R. He
argued that applicant No. 6 is the mother-in-law and a widow woman who is
working with Zilla Parishad at Ahmednagar. According to him, it is highly
improbable that applicant No. 6 could have been continuously involved in the
alleged harassment of the respondent No. 2. He also pointed out that the F.I.R
itself is lodged after considerable delay thereby covering alleged incidents
which according to respondent No. 2 has spread over from the year 2022 till
2023. He argued that except F.I.R, there was absolutely no contemporaneous
Cri. Appln. 1151-2023.odt 6 of 14
complaint or report filed with any of the Authorities and making complaint
after such a long delay of the incidents which took place in 2020 and 2021 or
2022 reflects the conduct of respondent No. 2 of making false and fabricated
allegations only for the reason that the matrimonial relations with applicant No.
7 had gone sour. He brought to the notice of this Court that respondent No. 2
had filed an application under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, seeking
restitution of conjugal rights. He tried to argue that on one hand, respondent
No. 2 wants to reside and cohabit with the applicant No. 7 and on the other
hand she has been making allegations of harassment and cruelty caused by the
applicants. He also tried to argue that whatever is stated in the F.I.R is not
mentioned in Section 9 and, therefore, a legal inference can be drawn that the
allegations are leveled against the applicants only to pressurize and harass
them. He further pointed out that supplementary statement has recorded after 9
(Nine) months wherein respondent No. 2 has introduced certain fresh
allegations, this itself undermines the credibility of the allegations leveled by
respondent No. 2 against the applicants. The learned counsel, therefore, has
argued that the criminal proceedings against applicant Nos. 1 to 6 are
malicious and clearly amounts to abuse of process of law.
11. The learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State argued that
the F.I.R and supplementary statement of respondent No. 2 itself discloses
Cri. Appln. 1151-2023.odt 7 of 14
several incidents which spelts out harassment, cruelty and demand of dowry at
the hands of applicants. It is argued that delay in reporting the alleged
incidences which has taken place over three years does not affect the present
case as it is obvious that respondent No. 2 was hopeful that relations and
behavior of the applicants will improve over the time, however once she was
satisfied that the harassment and cruelty is continuing, she had no option but to
approach the police and report the offence. It was submitted that allegations of
cruelty as required under Section 498 A of I.P.C and demand of dowry are
clearly mentioned which are subsequently corroborated with the statements of
witnesses that has been recorded by the Investigating Officer. In light of all
this, according to the public prosecutor, there is sufficient material on record to
proceed with the trial and, therefore, it is not a case wherein the F.I.R, charge
sheet or the consequential criminal case can be quashed at this stage.
12. We have also heard learned Advocate for respondent No. 2 who
argued on the same lines that of the learned public prosecutor. He also
submitted that charge sheet demonstrates sufficient material on record
supporting the allegations and offences mentioned therein. In light of the
material on record he also prayed for dismissal of the application.
13. After hearing all the parties and after perusing the entire record
Cri. Appln. 1151-2023.odt 8 of 14
which has been placed before us in the nature of charge sheet, the issue for
determination in the preset case is whether the allegations in the F.I.R and
charge sheet even if accepted on its face value, disclose the commission of
offences against applicant No. 1 to 6 so as to continue their prosecution.
14. Before we proceed to analyze the material on record and find out
whether the allegations are sufficient to disclose the commissioning of
offences, we find it necessary to mention the long line of decisions pronounced
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India wherein Apex Court has consistently
questioned against the misuse of Section 498 A of I.P.C by indiscriminately
implicating the relations of the husband without any specific allegations. While
considering application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, the principles laid down
in the land mark judgment of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 SUPL
(1) SCC 335, the Apex Court has laid down category of cases were power
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C may be exercised to quash proceeding including
cases were allegations are observed inherently improbable or made with mala
fide intentions. Keeping these principles in mind, we will be proceed to
consider the entire material and allegations made by respondent No. 2 in the
present case against the present applicants who happens to be relatives of the
husband. While considering these allegations, the reference is also made to the
case of Geeta Malhotra Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 2012 (10) SCC 741. ,
Cri. Appln. 1151-2023.odt 9 of 14
wherein it is held as under:
24. In the instant case, the question of territorial
jurisdiction was just one of the grounds for quashing the
proceedings along with the other grounds and, therefore,
the High Court should have examined whether the
prosecution case was fit to be quashed on other grounds or
not. At this stage, the question also crops up whether the
matter is fit to be remanded to the High Court to consider
all these aspects. But in matters arising out of a criminal
case, fresh consideration by remanding the same would
further result into a protracted and vexatious proceeding
which is unwarranted as was held by this Court in Ramesh
v. State of T.N. that such a course of remand would be
unnecessary and inexpedient as there was no need to
prolong the controversy. The facts in that matter on this
aspect were although somewhat different since the
complainant had lodged the complaint after seven years of
delay, yet in the instant matter the factual position remains
that the complaint as it stands lacks ingredients constituting
the offence under Section 498-A IPC and Sections ¾ of the
Dowry Prohibition Act against the appellants who are the
sister and brother of the complainant's husband and their
involvement in the whole incident appears only by way of a
casual inclusion of their names. Hence, it cannot be
overlooked that it would be total abuse of process of law if
we were to remand the matter to the High Court to consider
whether there were still any material to hold that the trial
should proceed against them in spite of absence of prima
facie material constituting the offence alleged against them.
Thus, the Court observed that casual references to relatives
without specific role does not justified their prosecution under Section 498 A.
15. In another case Kahkashan Kausar Vs. State of Bihar 2022 (6)
SCC 599, the Apex Court held that general and ambiguous allegations against
Cri. Appln. 1151-2023.odt 10 of 14
relatives are not sustainable. It is therefore, become necessary for the Courts to
carefully scrutinize the allegations when it comes to matrimonial disputes with
a view to protect innocent relatives from false implications. Keeping the
aforesaid principles in our mind when we scrutinize the present F.I.R. along
with the supplementary statement of respondent No. 2 and the entire charge
sheet itself apparent that the allegations made against applicant Nos. 1 to 5 are
entirely vague and general in nature without assigning any specifications about
the same. It is admitted position that applicant Nos. 1 to 4 are distant relatives
and they reside in different cities. No specific act or incidents are specifically
attributed to them and except allegations which are sweeping in nature, such as
"all accused demanded dowry", "all accused harassed", without identifying
what exactly each of them did. Such ambiguous allegations cannot form the
basis of prosecution.
16. In respect of applicant No. 6 who is the mother-in-law of
respondent No. 2, there are certain allegations about the demand of dowry
however the allegations still remains general and divide of any particulars. The
record shows that she is employed in Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar and the
entire charge sheet does not disclose any corroborative material indicating her
active participation in cruelty. One of the important aspect which raises doubt
and the aspiration about the truthfulness about the allegations is the
Cri. Appln. 1151-2023.odt 11 of 14
supplementary statement which came to be recorded after nine months from
the date of F.I.R. The allegations against the husband that he had illicit relation
with some woman and that when respondent No. 2 tried to confront him about
the same she was abused and assaulted. Such serious incident in the life of
respondent No. 2 was not reported at the very first instance in the F.I.R., but
has been brought on record only after nine months in something which appears
to be embellishments. In any case, the allegations of illicit relationship,
physical assault and threats pertain specifically to the husband against whom
the proceedings will continue. The other factor that swayed in our minds is the
application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking restitution of
conjugal rights filed by the respondent No. 2. This is one relevant circumstance
which indicates that she herself seeks continuation of matrimonial relationship
which is inconsistent with the claims of sustained cruelty at the hands of
applicant No. 1 to 6 that it dangered her life or health.
17. In respect of allegations pertaining to Section 323, 504 and
506 of I.P.C, it is to be stated that allegations made in the F.I.R and the
supplementary statement pertains to applicant No. 7 i.e., husband of respondent
No. 2, the allegations does not specifically mentions that applicant Nos. 1 to 6
committed any such act which constitutes an offence under Section 323, 504,
506 of I.P.C. The F.I.R clearly mentions general reference of applicants
Cri. Appln. 1151-2023.odt 12 of 14
assaulting respondent No. 2. According to us, general reference will not satisfy
the requirement of law to constitute these offences.
18. As regard to the allegations pertaining to Section 3 and 4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act, we are conscious of the fact that there is reference to
payment of Rs. 1,50,000/- and 50 Grams of Gold. There is also a demand of
Rs. 10,00,000/- for purchase of flat. However the allegations are that such
payment which was made by the father of respondent No. 2 was made to the
husband i.e., applicant No. 7. No specific allegation is made that applicant Nos.
1 to 6 demanded or accepted dowry. A general reference to "all accused" is not
sufficient to specify the statutory ingredients of these provisions.
19. Thus accepting the allegations at their face value, prima facie no
case is made out against applicant Nos. 1 to 6. In our considered view a
continuation of criminal proceedings on the basis of such vague or ambiguous
allegations against them would be nothing but abuse of process and would
cause needless harassment. We are therefore, persuaded to exercise our
inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Hence, we proceed to pass
following order :-
ORDER
i) Criminal Application stands dismissed as withdrawn against
Cri. Appln. 1151-2023.odt 13 of 14
applicant No. 7 - husband of respondent No. 2.
ii) Criminal Application stands allowed for applicant Nos. 1 to 6.
iii) Charge Sheet No. 500 of 2023 and Regular Criminal Case No. 11
of 2024, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Aurangabad, arising out of the First Information Report vide Crime No.
0075/2023 registered with Cidco Police Station, Aurangabad dated
10.02.2023 for the offences under sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 read
with Section 34 of I.P.C and Section 3 and of Dowry Prohibition Act,
stands quashed and set aside as against applicant Nos. 1 to 6 i.e., -
1) Rushikesh s/o Rajendra Naikwade, 2) Rajendra s/o Dashrath
Naikwade, 3) Ushabai w/o. Ashok Gore 4) Krishna s/o Ashok Gore, 5)
Abhijit s/o Babasaheb Jadhav, 6) Bharti w/o Babasaheb Jadhav.
iv) No order as to costs.
(Hiten S. Venegavkar, J.) ( Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi, J.)
bsj
Cri. Appln. 1151-2023.odt 14 of 14
