Keshaorao Chandrabhanji Vaidya and Other vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station Officer, P. S. Kolhapuri Gate, Dist. Amravati (City) 2. Vrushali w/o Shirish Vaidya, Age: 28 yrs, Occu: Household, C/o- Vijay Gajbhiye, R/o. Kishor Colony, Amravati, Tq. and Dist. Amravati. NON-APPLICANTS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Mr. Sumit B. Gandhe , Advocate for the applicants. Mr. N. B. Jawade, APP for non-applicant /State. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

¶13

CORAM : URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.

¶14

DATED : 29.01.2026

¶15

O R A L J U D G M E N T :

¶16

Heard. Admit.

¶17

31-APL-204-2025.odt

¶18

2

¶19

Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the applicants and learned APP for the State. None appears for the non-applicant No.2 despite the service.

¶20

This application is preferred by the applicants for quashing of the first information report in connection with Crime No.271 of 2024 registered at Kolhapuri Gate (Amravati City) for the offence punishable under Section 498-A, 504 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and consequent proceeding arising out of the same bearing charge-sheet No.29 of 2025 and Regular C. C. No.412 of 2025.

¶21

The applicant No.1 is father-in-law and applicant No.2 is mother-in-law of the non-applicant No.2 and other nearest relatives of the husband of the non-applicant No.2. The crime is registered on the basis of the report lodged by non-applicant No.2 alleging that her marriage was performed with Shirish Keshaorao Vaidya on 21.06.2022. After marriage, she resumed the cohabitation at the house of the present applicants. When she was cohabiting with her husband at the house of the present applicants, she was pregnant and subsequently delivered a male child and she was advised to bed rest; however, the present applicants did not take proper care of her and subjected her to abuse. Her husband also ill-treated her on various counts. On the

¶22

31-APL-204-2025.odt

¶23

3

¶24

basis of the said report, the crime was registered against the present applicants.

¶25

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants who are in-laws and brother-in-law and sister-in-law against whom the general, omnibus and vague allegations are levelled without specifying any overt act or any active participation on their part. Only allegation against them that she was abused by them, but the specification of the abuses are also not mentioned in the first information report. The FIR came to be lodged merely because, the dispute arose between the husband and wife. In view of that, the application deserves to be allowed.

¶26

Per contra, learned APP strongly opposed the same and submitted that considering the allegations levelled against the present applicants that they were abuisng and mentally harassing her. In view of that, the application deserves to be rejected.

¶27

On perusal of the entire first information report, it reveals that general, omnibus and vague allegations are levelled against the present applicants without attributing any willful conduct on their part which is a requirement of Section 498-A of IPC. Now it is well settled that mere reference of the names of the relatives of the husband unless their specific act or active participation is

¶28

4

¶29

31-APL-204-2025.odt

¶30

narrated in the first information report. Thus, considering no specific act attributed to the present applicants and on the basis of the general, omnibus and vague statements, they are implicated the application deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order:

¶31

ORDER

¶32

(i) The Application is allowed.

¶33

(ii) The first information report in connection with Crime No.271 of 2024 registered at Kolhapuri Gate (Amravati City) for the offence punishable under Section 498-A, 504 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and the consequent proceeding arising out of the same bearing Regular C. C. No.412 of 2025 is hereby quashed and set aside to the extent of the applicant No.1- Keshaorao Chandrabhanji Vaidya, applicant No.2- Rekha Keshaorao Vaidya, appliant No.3- Aashish Keshaorao Vaidya and applicant No.4Meghashri Aashish Vaidya.

¶34

The Appliation is disposed of.

¶35

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶36

(URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.)

¶37

MJ Jadhav

Keshaorao Chandrabhanji Vaidya and Other v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Keshaorao Chandrabhanji Vaidya and Other v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mohd. Intiyaz Moh Rasul vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Pso Ramtek Dist Nagpur

Dyneshwar Manchakrao Malwe vs State of Maharashtra Thr Pso, Ps Gobervahi Bhandara

Sangita W/O. Sanjay Rai vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso, Ps Pandharkawda Dist. Yeotmal and Another.

Mohammad Salim S/O Abdul Kalam vs State of Maharashtra Thr Pso Nagpuri Dist Amravati

Akash S/O Jaybhim Kamble vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Ps Kotwali, Amravati City, Tq. and Dist. Amravati and Another

Ashish Tukaram Bartine vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.