Ajay Rajendra Khare & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra (2025)

Citation: 2025:BHC-AUG:15731-DB
Criminal Application No.: 53 of 2025
Order Date: 10 June 2025
Bench: Justice Vibha Kankanwadi; Justice Sanjay A. Deshmukh

Facts of the Case

1. Applicants: Ajay Rajendra Khare and five family members (parents, relatives, and in-laws).
   Respondent: State of Maharashtra (through Police) and Dr. Mrs. Sandhya Khare (complainant/wife).
2. FIR Details: Crime No.291/2024 under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 IPC, alleging dowry demand, cruelty, assault, and abuse after marriage.
3. Timeline: Marriage took place on 28.01.2024; alleged desertion on 28.03.2024. Cohabitation lasted about 40 days, including a honeymoon trip to Manali.
4. Employment of Complainant: The complainant suppressed her status as a Medical Practitioner and senior executive, relevant for understanding residence and cohabitation patterns.
5. RTI Evidence: Inquiry at Kharghar Police Station confirmed that although the complainant visited the police, she stated she would file a complaint after her father arrived. Subsequently, no complaint was filed at that station on the relevant date.
6. Allegations: The complainant alleged a dowry demand of ₹20 lakh and specific abusive/cruel acts by several family members, though investigation revealed inconsistencies in location and role attribution.

Issues Framed

1. Whether the FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC were supported by sufficient factual evidence or amounted to an abuse of process.
2. Whether the allegations represented a classic case of misuse of Section 498-A IPC.
3. Whether there was proper police investigation into relevant locations and accused persons.
4. Whether quashing under Section 482 CrPC was warranted in these circumstances.

Arguments

For the Applicants:

• All family members were unnecessarily dragged into the case; allegations do not specify individual acts.
• The complainant had only resided in the matrimonial home for a short period, with much of that time spent either with parents or travelling.
• Documentary evidence (employment details, travel bookings, RTI at police station) contradicts key elements of the complaint.
• Claimed that the FIR was motivated by vengeance and represented an abuse of law, supported by reference to Supreme Court precedent (Mohammad Wajid & Ors. v. State of UP).

For the Respondents (State & Complainant):

• Alleged that evidence had been collected and charge-sheet filed, with the complainant having narrated specific acts to family members.
• Asserted that the quantum and nature of harassment constituted cruelty as defined by Section 498-A explanation.
• Duration of stay is immaterial if the harassment is proven to be severe.

Judgment

• The High Court closely scrutinized the FIR, charge sheet, and supporting documents.
• Found suppression of critical facts, copy-paste witness statements, and inconsistent residence/work details by the complainant.
• Investigation found lacking: Police failed to inquire at places where alleged acts occurred; spot panchnama was drawn at a location unrelated to actual events.
• The FIR and subsequent proceedings were found to be “classic examples of misuse of Section 498-A IPC” driven by mala fide intentions and vengeance rather than actual substantiated cruelty.
• The Court cited the Supreme Court’s principle that in vexatious or manifestly frivolous cases, courts must look “behind and between the lines” of the FIR, not merely at face value, and consider attendant circumstances and evidence.

Ratio Decidendi

• Section 498A IPC must not be used as a tool of vengeance; courts must vigilantly scrutinize FIRs for mala fide intent and lack of prima facie evidence.
• Blanket accusations against distant relatives, suppression of material facts, and lack of credible investigation are grounds for quashing criminal proceedings.

Decision

• Quashed all proceedings against the applicants under Section 482 CrPC, holding the trial to be an abuse of process.

Legal Principles

Role of Section 482 CrPC:

• High Courts have inherent power to quash proceedings if they are manifestly abusive, frivolous, or vexatious.

Scrutiny Beyond FIR:

• When allegations suggest abuse or ulterior motive, courts are mandated to consider all surrounding circumstances, including documentary evidence and investigation lapses.

Misuse of Section 498-A IPC:

• Courts must check against overreach and false implication, especially in matrimonial disputes, and ensure charges are not based on unverified, copy-pasted allegations.

Supreme Court Precedent – Mohammad Wajid v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023):

1. Courts must scrutinize FIRs with heightened care, especially when there are indications of ulterior motives or private vengeance.
2. Evaluation should include all surrounding circumstances and evidence collected during investigation.
3. Courts have a duty to examine if proceedings are merely an abuse of the criminal process, intended to harass the accused.
4. Legal evidence and quality of investigation are critical; proceedings without real offence or with inconsistent evidence should be quashed.

Relevance to Ajay Rajendra Khare & Ors.:

1. The Bombay High Court assessed if the FIR and investigation represented an abuse of process.
2. Considered whether allegations were supported by credible evidence; found them lacking and determined continuing the trial would be unjust.
3. Sets precedent for judicial caution against automatically accepting well-drafted complaints when material circumstances point to mala fides or procedural lapses.

Relevance

• Illustrates judicial vigilance against misuse of criminal provisions in matrimonial disputes.
• Reinforces the need for careful police investigation, not mere formalities or presumptions.
• Highlights that duration of matrimonial residence does not by itself indicate cruelty; evidence and credible narratives are essential.
• Emphasizes authorities’ responsibility in processing dowry and cruelty cases ethically, supporting genuine victims and preventing misuse.

Conclusion

• Exercising inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC, the Court quashed and set aside the entire criminal proceeding pending before the Judicial Magistrate against all the applicants.
• Reinforces judicial safeguards against frivolous and malicious matrimonial criminal complaints.
• Underlines the critical need for bona fide complaints and proper investigations before permitting prosecution.

Also Read:
Rights of undertrial prisoners in India
How To Send A Legal Notice In India