Jagannath S/O Raghunath Asolkar And Others v. The State Of Maharashtra, Pso, Ps, Gadge Nagar, Tq. And Dist. Amravati And ANR.
2026:BHC-NAG:2748-DB 1 31-J-APL-1093-2025.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1093 OF 2025 APPLICANTS: 1.
Jagannath S/o Raghunath Asolkar, (Father-in-law) Aged about 64 years, (Mother-in-law) 2.
Rama Jagannath Asolkar, Aged about 61 years, Both R/o Raghunath Asolkar, Ladki BK, Dist : Amravati.
(Sister-in-law) 3.
Sheetal Praful Ingalkar, (Married) Aged about 37 years, Occ : Household, R/o : Bhikuji Nagar, Dhamangaon Railway, Amravati.
V E R S U S NON-APPLICANTS :
1. State of Maharashtra Through Police Station Officer, Police Station Gadge Nagar, Tq. & Dist. Amravati.
2. Prachi Manoj Asolkar Aged about 32 years, Occ : Household, R/o C/o Mehge Layout, Vidyut Colony, Gadge Nagar, Tq. & Dist. Amravati.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Yash Bhelande, Advocate for applicants.
Shri Nikhil Joshi, Additional Public Prosecutor for non-applicant No.1. Shri Pinak Vishwarupe, Advocate h/f Shri P. V. Navlani, Advocate for non-applicant No.2.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:
URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
DATED : 13/02/2026.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
2 31-J-APL-1093-2025.doc 1.
Heard. Admit. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2.
The present application is filed by in-laws and other nearest relatives of the husband of non-applicant No.2. As per the allegations in the FIR, her marriage with Manoj Jagannath Asolkar was performed on 27/11/2020. Her husband was serving at Pune in Private Company. She started residing along with him. It is alleged that after marriage for some days, she resided with in-laws and immediately from the day of the marriage itself, the present applicant Nos.1 and 2 started asking her that why she has not worn the ornaments on the date of marriage. They also taunted her that she is not having any Sanskar and on that count, they instigated her husband also. Her husband was also demanding divorce from her and on that count, she was physically and mentally harassed. Therefore, she approached the police and lodged the report.
3.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants who submitted that as far as present applicants are concerned, general, omnibus and vague allegations are levelled without assigning any specific role to them. He submitted that merely because the relationship of the husband and wife was disturbed and there was
3 31-J-APL-1093-2025.doc a rift between them and therefore, the FIR came to be lodged against the present applicants. He submitted that the recitals of the FIR itself show that she started residing after marriage at Pune along with her husband. Therefore, there is no opportunity for the present applicants to visit her house and ill-treat her merely because the present applicants as the relatives of the husband, they are implicated. In view of that, application deserves to be allowed.
4.
Per contra, learned APP and learned counsel for the complainant strongly opposed for the same on the ground that considering the nature of the allegations levelled against the present applicants, prima facie case is made out and hence, application deserves to be rejected.
5.
On hearing both the sides and on perusal of entire FIR and entire investigation papers, admittedly except sweeping allegations without assigning any specific role to the present applicants, they are implicated in the alleged offence. The recitals of the FIR itself show that she was residing along with her husband at Pune and present applicants are residing at Morshi and distance between two places is more than 1000 kilo meters. He submitted that considering the entire allegation is general and sweeping in nature, application deserves to be allowed.
4 31-J-APL-1093-2025.doc 6.
On perusal of the FIR also, there is substance in the contention made by the learned counsel for the applicants. Admittedly, no specific role is attributed to the present applicants. No specific instances are narrated by the non-applicant No.2. Now, it is well settled that in absence of specific allegations, if the relatives are implicated, then it should be nipped into the bud. Considering the similar circumstances in the present case also, in view of that, present applicants have made out a case for exercising the powers under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023. In view of that, I proceed to pass following order :-
ORDER
i] The application is allowed.
ii] The FIR in connection with Crime No.491/2025 registered under Section 498-A R/w Section 34 of the IPC and consequent proceeding arising out of the same bearing Charge Sheet No.668/2025, bearing RCC No.1617/2025 is hereby quashed and set aside to the extent of the present applicants.
7.
The application is disposed of.
[JUDGE] Choulwar Signed by: V.M. Choulwar (VMC) Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 17/02/2026 18:57:11