Bombay High Court
Mona Sandeep Mishra vs The State Of Maharashtra on 26 June, 2025
Author: A.S. Gadkari
Bench: A. S. Gadkari
2025:BHC-AS:28974-DB
KVM 209 - APL 1221 - 2017.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Digitally signed
by KANCHAN
KANCHAN VINOD
MAYEKAR
VINOD
MAYEKAR
Date:
2025.07.15 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
19:22:20
+0530
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1221 OF 2017
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2023 OF 2025
Mona Sandeep Mishra ]
Aged, 30 years, Occupation - Housewife ]
Add/at, A/502, Gardenia Building, ]
Gundecha Complex, Thakur Village, ]
Kandivali (East), Mumbai - 400101 ] ...Applicant
V/s.
1. The State of Maharashtra ]
(Through Sr. Inspector of Police, ]
Borivali Police Station) ]
2. Shweta Shailesh Mishra ]
Nee, Shweta Mahendra Mishra ]
Aged, 31 yrs, Occ : Doctor ]
Res/at, 2nd Floor, Hema Building, ]
Chandarvarkar Road, Borivali (West) ]
Mumbai:400066 ] ...Respondents
______________________
Dr. Samarth S. Karmarkar a/w. Ms.Reshma R. Apte, Ms.Priti Rita, i/b.
Karmarkar & Associates for Applicant.
Smt. Savita M. Yadav, A.P.P. for Respondent No. 1 - State.
Mr. Rupesh R. Lanjekar for Respondent No.2.
______________________
CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND
RAJESH S. PATIL, JJ.
DATE : 26th JUNE, 2025
1/4
::: Uploaded on - 15/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2025 01:06:20 :::
KVM 209 - APL 1221 - 2017.doc
JUDGMENT ( Per : A.S. Gadkari, J. ) :
–
1) Applicant – Accused No.5 in C.C. No. 506/PW/2018, pending
on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class(26 th Court), Borivali,
Mumbai, arising out of CR No. 147 of 2017, dated 10 th April, 2017,
registered with Borivali Police Station, Mumbai, under Sections 498A, 504,
323, 406 and 509 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, has filed this
Application under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing
of the said crime.
2) Heard Dr. Karmarkar, learned Advocate for the Applicant, Smt.
Yadav, learned A.P.P. for the Respondent No. 1 – State and Mr. Lanjekar,
learned Advocate for Respondent No.2. Perused entire record.
3) Shorn of unnecessary details,the brief facts giving rise to the
filing of present Application can be summarized as follows :-
3.1) The Respondent No.2 has filed the aforenoted F.I.R. on 10 th
April, 2017. The Applicant is niece of the husband of Respondent No.2.
Bare perusal of the F.I.R. reveals that, in the month of July 2012, the
Applicant alongwith her parents arrived from America and had been to the
house of the Respondent No.2 at about 5.00 p.m. At that relevant time, the
Respondent No.2 was not in house and came later on. She rang the bell of
the door. However, the in-laws of the Respondent No.2 i.e. parents of
Applicant and Applicant, who were present inside the house, deliberately
did not open the door for two hours. After two hours, when the door was
2/4
::: Uploaded on – 15/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 19/07/2025 01:06:20 :::
KVM 209 – APL 1221 – 2017.doc
opened and Respondent No.2 entered into house, her in-laws, i.e. parents of
the Applicant and the Applicant abused her in filthy language. This is the
only allegation made in the entire body of the F.I.R. against the Applicant.
It be noted here that, in the concluding part of the F.I.R., a bald statement is
made that, the Applicant and other co-accused pressurized Respondent
No.2 to transfer the flat situated at Kandivali in the name of husband of
Respondent No.2 i.e. Mr.Shailesh Mishra and also demanded Rs.3 crores for
establishing a hospital. The allegations made in the concluding part of the
F.I.R. do not find place in the body/earlier part of the F.I.R. As noted earlier,
the allegation against the Applicant is of not opening the door of the said
house for two hours alongwith other accused persons and abusing
Respondent No.2 in the month of July 2012. As noted earlier, the present
crime is lodged belatedly on 10th April, 2017. Undoubtedly, the allegations
against the Applicant are vague and generic in nature.
4) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Mohammed Qamruddin
& Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. in Criminal Appeal No. 2309 of
2024, dated 29th April, 2024, in paragraph 4 has held as under :-
” 4. It is already well settled by this Court in the case
of ‘Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. vs. State of U.P. and Anr.‘ reported
in (2012) 10 SCC 741 and also in the case of ‘Kahkashan
Kausar @ Sonam & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors.‘ in Criminal
Appeal No.195 of 2022 decided on 08.02.2022, that such
vague, general and omnibus allegations against the family3/4
::: Uploaded on – 15/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 19/07/2025 01:06:20 :::
KVM 209 – APL 1221 – 2017.docmembers/relatives implicating them in matrimonial disputes
are an abuse of process of law. “
5) After applying the aforestated ratio laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court to the present case, we are of the considered view that, the
continuation of present proceedings against the Applicant will be sheer
abuse of process of law and needs to be quashed.
5.1) Application is accordingly allowed in terms of prayer clause
(a).
6) In view of disposal of Criminal Application No. 1221 of 2017,
Interim Application No. 2023 of 2025 does not survive and is accordingly
disposed off.
(RAJESH S. PATIL, J.) (A.S. GADKARI, J.) 4/4 ::: Uploaded on - 15/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2025 01:06:20 :::
