High Court
Legal Reasoning
1 Cri.appln 941-2025.odt[This order is corrected pursuant to the speaking to minutes order dated 08.09.2025] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 941 OF 20251.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
Legal Reasoning
2 Cri.appln 941-2025.odtat 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... ApplicantsVersus1.Priyanka w/o Nilesh Borde,Age : 26 years, Occu. : Household,R/o. : At present Katrad, Near KatradGrampanchayat, Tq. Rahuri,Dist. Ahmednagar. 2 of 10 3 Cri.appln 941-2025.odt2.Viraj s/o Nilesh Borde,Age : 4 years, Occu. : Household,R/o. : Dattanagar, Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmenagar,At present Katrad, Near KatradGrampanchayat, Tq. Rahuri,Dist. Ahmednagar... RespondentsMr. 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 theproceedings bearing Criminal M. A. No. 326/2023 filed under theprovisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,2005 (for short “D. V. Act”). A complaint is lodged by the presentrespondents. Applicant No. 1 is the husband, applicant No. 2 ismother-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 applicantNo. 10 is husband of applicant No. 9. 2.The respondents filed a complaint alleging domestic 3 of 10 4 Cri.appln 941-2025.odtviolence at the hands of the present applicants. It is alleged that,applicant Nos. 5, 7, 8, 9 and 11 interfered with the family life ofrespondent No. 1. Applicant Nos. 4 and 9 were allegedlyharassing respondent No. 1. Against applicant No. 3 it is allegedthat, he happens to be in police department and gives threats tofather of respondent No. 1. It is alleged that, the husband used tosuspect character of respondent No. 1. As per allegationapplicant No. 9 used to defame the image of respondent No. 1stating that she had relations prior to marriage with some otherperson. There was demand of dowry. Against applicant No. 8 it isalleged that she happens to be nurse. When respondent No. 1 waspregnant, she gave tablets to respondent No. 1 to abort. On theseallegations complaint came to be filed on 30.10.2023.3.The learned J.M.F.C. issued summons. The applicantsthereafter approached this Court for quashing of the proceedings.4.The learned advocate Mr. Kadarale for the applicantsvehemently argued that, there are no specific allegations againstany of the applicants. Except husband she never resided in adomestic relationship with any of the applicants. A complaint 4 of 10 5 Cri.appln 941-2025.odtcame to be filed only after husband issued her a notice forcohabitation on 15.05.2023. In the notice it is clearly stated that,respondent No. 1 on her own left the matrimonial house in Diwali2022. He has also filed H.M.P. No. 82/2020 in the Court oflearned C.J.S.D., Shrirampur seeking divorce on 08.06.2023 onthe ground of desertion and cruelty as she never cohabited withhim willingly. It is the case that, even attempt was made beforeBharosa Cell to settle the dispute, however, no settlement could bepossible because of the attitude of respondent No. 1. The learnedadvocate thus prays for allowing the application. 5.The learned advocate Smt. Zaware for respondentsvehemently argued that, there are specific allegations made in thecomplaint. Applicant No. 3 is working in police. By using hisposition he threatened father of respondent No. 1. She submitsthat, against applicant No. 9 there is specific allegation that sheused to defame the respondent No. 1 in the relatives saying thatshe had relations prior to marriage with some other person. Thereis specific demand of Rs. 90,000/- (Rs. Ninety Thousand only) byapplicant No. 2. Against sisters-in-law there is allegation that theyused to constantly come to her house and used to harass her. She 5 of 10 6 Cri.appln 941-2025.odtthus submits that, when clearly a case is made out, no indulgenceneed to be shown. She prays for rejection of the application.6.This Court by order dated 17.03.2025 recorded that, theapplication is not pressed for applicant Nos. 1 and 2. Thequestion is thus now, as to whether a case is made out to quashthe proceedings so far as applicant Nos. 3 to 11 are concerned.Against applicant No. 3 the allegation is that, he happens to bepolice person and used to threat father of respondent No. 1. Noany specific date or event is given except this allegation. Againstapplicant Nos. 5, 7, 8, 9 & 11, it is alleged that they used to beatrespondent No. 1 on a suspicion that she was chatting on mobilewith some other person. However, no specific date and time isgiven. Further, it is alleged that they used to expect respondentNo. 1 to get up at 5.00 O'clock and to do household work. ThisCourt, however, finds that these allegations fall short of makingout a case under the D.V. Act. All the sisters-in-law are residing atdifferent places. The address of applicant No. 3 is of Pune. He isin service. This Court thus finds that, he cannot be said to be aperson in domestic relation with respondent No. 1. 6 of 10 7 Cri.appln 941-2025.odt7.The learned advocate for the applicants relied upon thefollowing judgments :(i)Ganesh and others Vs. Sau. Nikita and othersreported in 2021 ALL MR (Cri) 3036.(ii)Shyamlal Devda and others Vs. Parimalareported in 2020 (3) SCC 14.(iii)Mr. Prabhakar Mohite and Ors. Vs. The Stateof Maharashtra and Ors. reported in 2018 (6)Mh.LJ (Crl.) 478.(iv)Prakash Vinayak Gaikwad and Ors. Vs. Stateof Maharashtra and Anr. reported in 2020 (5)Mh.LJ (Crl.) 499.8.In the case of Ganesh and others (supra), a prayer forquashing of complaint was entertained by this Court at Nagpur asthe applicants therein were residents of places away from place ofresidence of complainant – wife. The allegation was that, whenapplicants went to visit matrimonial house, some incidents ofharassment had taken place. It was held that, the applicants werenot in domestic relationship with wife, nor they had lived in 7 of 10 8 Cri.appln 941-2025.odtshared household with wife and on that the proceeding wasquashed.9.In the case of Shyamlal Devda and others (supra), theHon’ble Apex Court held that, before issuing notice, the Court hasto be prima facie satisfied that there are instances of domesticviolence. In the said case, there were no specific allegationsagainst the relatives of the husband. It was held that theproceedings under the domestic violence are liable to be quashed. 10.In the case of Mr. Prabhakar Mohite and Ors. (supra), thisCourt considered that the allegations against uncle and aunt of thehusband were vague and general in nature. No specific role wasattributed to them. At no point of time they lived in sharedhousehold and therefore, they cannot be said to be persons indomestic relationship with wife. In that view of the matter thisCourt, with the aid of inherent powers under Section 482 of theCode of Criminal Procedure quashed the complaint. 11.In the case of Prakash Vinayak Gaikwad and Ors. (supra),this Court held that, visits for short duration to the house of wifeis not sufficient to rope the persons in the proceedings under the 8 of 10 9 Cri.appln 941-2025.odtD.V. Act. 12.Coming to the facts of the present case, this Court finds thatthe allegations are mainly against the husband and mother-in-law.The application to their extent is already withdrawn. Theallegations are vague against applicant No. 3. The only allegationis that he is using his influence being in the police department.Against applicant No. 8 though there appears to be allegation thatshe has given tablet thereby aborting pregnancy of respondentNo. 1, it is seen that this allegation is also vague. It is not clearwhen that incident took place. 13.Looking to the submissions and the material it is also seenthat, the complaint under the D.V. Act is filed much after thehusband sent a notice to wife calling her to resume cohabitation.In spite of such notice it is seen that wife did not come forcohabitation and it is thereafter the husband is required to fileproceeding for divorce i.e. H.M.P. No. 82/2020 in the Court oflearned C.J.S.D., Shrirampur and it is thereafter the complaint isfiled. It does appear that the proceeding is filed as counter blastto the divorce proceedings. Till that period she had not filed any 9 of 10
Decision
10 Cri.appln 941-2025.odtcomplaint. This further strengthens the doubt that the proceedingis filed only as a counter blast. 14.Considering all above this Court finds that, a case is madeout to quash the proceedings so far as applicant Nos. 3 to 11 areconcerned. Criminal application is, therefore, allowed in terms ofprayer clause (B). The proceeding of Criminal M. A. No.326/2023 filed under the D. V. Act pending before the learnedJ.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