OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 968 OF 20241) Shashikala v. The State of Maharashtra.2) Sonali

*1* 909appln968o24IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 968 OF 20241) Shashikala w/o Kisan2) Sachin s/o Kisan3) Pratibha w/o Prabhakar4) Prabhakar s/o Shivram5) Shalini w/o Ashok…ApplicantsVERSUS1) The State of Maharashtra.2) Sonali w/o Mahendra...Respondents...Shri Nagargoje Ankush N., Advocate for the Applicants. Shri G.O. Wattamwar, APP for Respondent No.1/State. Shri Aditya Arun Puranik, Advocate for Respondent No.2.... CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. DATE : 30 September, 2025P. C. :-

Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.

The applicants are challenging the proceedingsinitiated by respondent No.2 (Sonali Mahendra Gunjal) videR.C.C. No.195/2022 pending on the file of learned JMFC,Karjat, District Ahilyanagar, for offences punishable under *2* 909appln968o24Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506(2) r/w 34 of the Indian PenalCode against her husband (Mahendra Kisan Gunal) and presentapplicants. Applicant No.1 (Shashikala Kisan) is mother-in-law, applicant No.2 (Sachin Kisan) is brother-in-law, applicant No.3(Pratibha Prabhakar) is sister-in-law, applicant No.4 (PrabhakarShivram) is brother-in-law and applicant No.5 (Shalini Ashok) issister-in-law. They are also challenging the order of issuance ofprocess.

According to the applicants, the marriage between Mahendra with respondent No.2 took place on 20.06.2014 at Shrirampur, District Ahilyanagar. Mahendra is employed as Assistant Engineer in MSEDCL and since 2014 to 2018, he wasposted in Dhule and Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar districts. Respondent No.2/ wife used to accompany Mahendra at placesof his posting in those districts. The applicants are relatives of Mahendra and respondent No.2 and they had no occasion toaccompany with the couple at their places of posting. Theapplicants are staying at different places in Beed district whereas, respondent No.2 and Mahendra used to stay in Dhule and Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar districts. In 2018, respondent No.2 *3* 909appln968o24got separated from Mahendra and since then, she started residingwith her parents at Karjat. Thereafter, the matrimonialproceedings came to be initiated. Respondent No.2 hasimplicated the applicants only to harass them.

Learned advocate for the applicants vehementlysubmits that learned JMFC while passing the order of issuance ofprocess ought to have made an enquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure since the applicants are stayingbeyond the area of jurisdiction of learned JMFC. As such, theimpugned order of issuance of process is patently illegal. Another ground which is canvassed by learned advocate is thatgeneral allegations have been levelled against the applicants andno specific event or allegation as regards harassment torespondent No.2 has been stated in the complaint. Therefore, thecomplaint against the applicants is not maintainable. Learnedadvocate has also submitted that the order of issuance of processis passed in mechanical manner and in view of the judgment ofthe Honourable Supreme Court in M/s GHCL Employees StockOption Trust vs. M/s India Infoline Ltd., 2013 AIR SCW 1906,learned JMFC is required to apply mind and pass a reasoned *4* 909appln968o24order. He, therefore, prayed for allowing the application.

Per contra, learned advocate for respondent No.2submits that the allegations, which are made in the complaint byrespondent No.2, are specific in nature. It is the applicants, whoused to instigate her husband Mahendra for causing harassmentto respondent No.2. According to him, the order of issuance ofprocess is passed after verification of the complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, thereis no illegality or mistake committed by learned JMFC in passingthe impugned order. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of thisapplication.

After going through the material placed before this Court and contents of the complaint, it is seen that allegations areof very general nature and no specific allegation of harassment ismade against the applicants. The submission of learned advocatefor the applicants as regards issuance of process particularlywhen the applicants are staying outside the area of jurisdiction oflearned JMFC, an enquiry under Section 202 was required to beconducted, assumes significance. Learned JMFC was required toundertake an enquiry before issuance of process. *5* 909appln968o247.Be that as it may, the complaint itself does notdisclose any specific averment as regards harassment torespondent No.2 at the hands of the applicants, this applicationdeserves to be allowed, more particularly in view of theobservations of the Honourable Supreme Court in KahkashanKausar vs. State of Bihar reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599, thatthere are general tendency of the informant/ complainant inmatrimonial disputes to make allegations against in-laws andother relatives to trap them into controversy. 8. In view of the above, this Criminal Application isallowed. The impugned order of issuance of process as well asthe proceedings bearing R.C.C. No.195/2022 pending on the fileof learned JMFC, Karjat, District Ahilyanagar, are quashed andset aside to the extent of present applicants. kps

( SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. )