Vinodkumar Ramvilas Ladda and 4 Others vs the State of Mah. Thr. the Pso Ps Mangrulpir, Tah. Mangrulpir and Dist. Washim and Another

¶1

2026:BHC-NAG:1435-DB

106-APL-237-2024.odt

Judgment

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

¶6

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.237 OF 2024

¶7

A PPLICANTS	1.	Vinodkumar Ramvilas Ladda, (Father in law) aged about 64 years, Occu.: Business,
	2.	Sunita Vinodkumar Ladda, (Mother in Law) aged about 54 years, Occu.: Housewife,
	3.	Deepak Vinodkumar Ladda, (Brother in law) aged about 35 years, Occu.: Business,
		Applicant No.1, 2 and 3 are R/o. Maganpura, Tah. And Dist. Nanded.
	4.	Satyanarayan@ Satish Hemraj Bang,(Maternal Uncle) aged about 50 Years, Occ.: Business, R/o. Malkapur, Tah. Malkapur, Dist. Buldhana
	5.	Girish Hemraj Bang, (Maternal Uncle) aged about 52 years, Occ.: Business, R/o. Jaibhawani Nagar, Sillod, Tah. Sillod, Dist. Aurangabad ... VERSUS...
NON-APPLICANTS	1.	The State of Maharashtra, through the Police Station Officer, Police Station Mangrulpir, Tah. Mangrulpir, Dist. Washim

Pvf

106-APL-237-2024.odt

Judgment

2

Sau. Pallavi Shubham Ladda, aged 30 years, Occupation: Household, R/o C/o Lalit Devkisan Bajaj, Mahesh Nagar, in front of Civil Court, Tah Mangrulpir, Dist. Washim

¶13

¶14

Mr. V.N. Patre, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. A.M. Ghogare, APP for Non-Applicant No.1.

¶15

CORAM : PRAVIN S. PATIL, J. DATE : 22/01/2026

¶16

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶17

Heard. RULE . Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of Mr. V.N. Patre, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. A.M. Ghogare, learned APP for non-applicant No.1/State, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

¶18

By this application, the applicants namely, father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law, maternal uncles’-in-law seeks quashment of the proceedings initiated by non-applicant No.2 against them for the offence punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) registered vide FIR No.0892/2023 dated 14.12.2023.

¶19

In the present matter, on perusal of the complaint lodged by non-applicant No.2, it shows that the entire allegations revolve Pvf

106-APL-237-2024.odt

Judgment

3

around the fact that the husband of non-applicant No.2 has obtained an amount of Rs.24,63,000/- from various relatives of the non-applicant No.2 and is now avoiding repayment of the said amount. It is alleged that when non-applicant No.2 made a request for repayment of the said amount to applicants to repay the borrowed amount, she was mentally and physically tortured by the present applicants. The remaining allegations are trivial in nature and do not disclose any offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC.

¶24

The applicants have specifically pointed out that in the entire complaint, there are no specific allegations against the present applicants. All the allegations are general and omnibus in nature. It is also pointed out that only with a purpose to receive the repayment of Rs.24,63,000/-, the present applicants have been implicated in the offence so as to put pressure on the husband and his family members. According to the applicants, this complaint has been filed with an oblique motive and therefore, needs to be quashed and set-aside.

¶25

The applicants in support of their submissions have relied upon the notice dated 11.10.2023 issued by the husband of non-applicant No.2 and the reply filed by the non-applicant No.2 dated 19.10.2023. A perusal of these documents shows that non-applicant

Pvf

106-APL-237-2024.odt

Judgment

4

No.2 has replied the said notice specifically stating therein that, if her husband is ready to repay the amount of Rs.24,63,000/-, then she is ready to cohabit with the present applicant.

¶31

From these documents, it is made clear that the entire dispute is about the amount borrowed by the applicant No.1-husband from the relatives of non-applicant No.2. It is further clear from the record that the notice was issued on 11.10.2023 and she filed a reply on 19.10.2023 and thereafter, on 14.12.2023 a police complaint came to be lodged.

¶32

In addition as stated above, the allegations against the present applicants are not specific, they are general in nature and in any case, the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC is not made out against the present applicants. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the continuation of proceedings against the applicants is nothing but abuse of process of law and hence, I proceed to pass the following Order :-

¶33

O R D E R

¶34

i. The present criminal Application is allowed .

¶35

ii. FIR bearing Crime No.0892/2023 dated 14.12.2023 registered at Police Station Mangrulpir, Dist. Washim for the offence punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is

Pvf

106-APL-237-2024.odt

Judgment

5

hereby quashed and set aside only in relation to the applicants.

¶41