Bombay High Court
Shivraj S/O. Bhagwantrao Deshmukh vs Santoshi @ Pallavi Abhijit Dhake on 6 January, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:382
1 926criwp71.2019 judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 71 OF 2019
Shivraj S/o Bhagwantrao Deshmukh,
Age; 66 years, Occ; Agril,
R/o; Mudhol, Tq. Mudhol,
District. Nirmal (Adilabad),
Telangana State. ...PETITIONER
(Orig. Accused No. 1.)
VERSUS
1. Santoshi @ Pallavi Abhijit Dhake,
Age; 36 years, Occ; Household,
R/o; C/o; Prabhakar Tayde, Ravi Nagar,
Amrawati, Tq. & Dist. Amrawati,
Pin Code 444 605. ...ORIGINAL APPLICANT
2. Parwati Shivraj Deshmukh,
Age; 30 years, Occ; Household,
R/o; C/o; Prabhakar Tayde, Ravi Nagar,
Amrawati, Tq. & Dist. Amrawati,
Pin Code 444 605. .....( Respdt. Nos. 2 to 15 are
deleted as per order of this
Court dated. 02.07.2019 )
3. Chinna Baswantrao Maroti Mali Patil,
Age; 57 years, Occ; Agril,
R/o; Sultanpeth Post Menur, Mandal,
Madnoor, Dist. Nizamabad.
4. Gangabai Chinna Baswantrao,
Age; 52 years, Occ; Household,
R/o; Sultanpeth Post Menur, Mandal,
Madnoor, Dist. Nizamabad.
5. Santosh Chinna Baswantrao,
Age; 27 years, Occ; Education,
R/o; Pulstanpeth, Post Menur,
Mandal, Madnoor, Dist. Nizamabad.
6. Sangeeta Raju Korte,
Age; 36 years, Occ; Household,
2 926criwp71.2019 judgment
R/o; Laxmi Madhav Korte,
Nivasi Mukhbadir Vidyalaya,
Gadewar Colony, Bhokar.
7. Shilpa Bhojappa Adke,
Age; 33 years, Occ; Household,
R/o; Shakloor, Mandal Bichkunda,
Dist. Nizamabad.
8. Nidipi (Middle) Baswantrao Maroti Mali Patil,
Age; 62 years, Occ; Agril,
R/o; Sultanpeth Post Menur, Mandal,
Madnoor, Dist. Nizamabad.
9. Kushalbai Middle Baswantrao,
Age; 57 years, Occ; Household,
R/o; Sultanpeth Post Menur, Mandal,
Madnoor, Dist. Nizamabad.
10. Shankar Middle Baswantrao,
Age; 34 years, Occ; Agril,
R/o; Sultanpeth Post Menur, Mandal,
Madnoor, Dist. Nizamabad.
11. Kausalya Bai Shankar Mali Patil,
Age; 30 years, Occ; Agril,
R/o; Sultanpeth Post Menur, Mandal,
Madnoor, Dist. Nizamabad.
12. Raju Middle Baswantrao,
Age; 32 years, Occ; Agril,
R/o; Sultanpeth Post Menur, Mandal,
Madnoor, Dist. Nizamabad.
13. Suman Raju Mali Patil,
Age; 29 yea;rs, Occ; Household,
R/o; Sultanpeth Post Menur, Mandal,
Madnoor, Dist. Nizamabad.
14. Baswantrao Malkappa,
Age; 52 years, Occ; Agril,
R/o; Sultanpeth Post Menur, Mandal,
Madnoor, Dist. Nizamabad.
15. Hanmantrao Malkappa,
Age; 62 years, Occ; Retired Talathi,
R/o; Sultanpeth Post Menur, Mandal,
Madnoor, Dist. Nizamabad. ...RESPONDENTS
3 926criwp71.2019 judgment
(Resp. Nos. 2 to 15
Orig. Accused)
...
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Bharat G. Londhe
Advocate for Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Kailas B. Jadhav h/f Mr. S.B.
Bhapkar
....
CORAM : Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, J.
DATE : 06.01.2026
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of respective parties, the petition is heard finally at the stage of admission.
2. By the present petition, the petitioner takes exception to the order dated 19.11.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Biloli in Criminal Revision Application No. 16 of 2016, thereby confirmed the order dated 01.10.2016, passed below Exh. 87 in RCC No. 11 of 2013 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dharmabad, District Nanded and permitted respondent No. 1 to proceed/continue with the complaint.
3. A very short issue involved in this petition is that, whether the son, mother, father, daughter, brother and sister can be permitted to continue the criminal proceedings for the offence punishable under Section 494 of the IPC, after the death of the Complainant.
4. Mr. Londhe, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner/Original Accused No. 1 canvassed that the wife of the 4 926criwp71.2019 judgment petitioner, Smt. Sulochanabai, had filed a criminal complaint bearing RCC No. 11 of 2013 against the petitioner/accused for the offence punishable under Section 494 r/w 109 of the Indian Penal Code. However, during the pendency of said Complaint the Complainant i.e. wife of petitioner died on 02.08.2015. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the complaint itself abated upon death of the Complainant and no other person is having any right to continue the said proceedings on her behalf. However, on 01.10.2016 the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dharmabad passed an order below Exh. 87 and permitted respondent No. 2, his daughter, to continue the criminal proceedings on behalf of the Complainant. Therefore, the petitioner challenged said order by filing Criminal Revision Application No. 16 of 2016. On 19.11.2018, the learned Revisional Court passed the impugned order and dismissed the Revision Application filed by the Petitioner without considering the provisions of Section 198 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1978. Therefore, the impugned order is illegal and bad in law.
5. Per-Contra, Mr. Kailas B. Jadhav h/f Mr. S.B. Bhapkar appearing for respondent No. 1 submitted that during her life time the mother of the present respondent No. 1 instituted RCC No. 11 of 2013 for the offence punishable under Section 494 read with Section 109 of the IPC. However, during pendency of said Complaint, the Original Complainant/mother of the present respondent No. 1 died on 02.08.2015. Therefore the Respondent being a daughter of Complainant 5 926criwp71.2019 judgment having every right to continue with said complaint. The learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 invited my attention to Section 198 (1) (c) of the Cr.P.C. and contended that if any complaint is filed by an aggrieved person for the offence punishable under Section 494 or 495 of the IPC, then such complaint may be filed on her behalf by her father, brother, mother, sister, son or daughter or by the son of any of them, with the leave of the Court.
6. The respondent No. 1 moved an Exhibit 87 seeking permission to pursue the complaint filed under Section 494 r/w 109 of the IPC. On 01.10.2016, the learned trial Court passed an order and permitted the Respondent No. 1 to pursue with the complaint. Thereafter, on 19.11.2018, the learned Revisional Court confirmed the said order. Therefore, no substantial ground is made out to interfere with said findings, hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition.
7. It is not in dispute that, Smt. Sulochanabai, the wife of present petitioner filed RCC No. 11 of 2013, wherein, the present petitioner is accused No. 1 for the offence punishable under Section 494 r/w 109 of the IPC. It is also not in dispute that during pendency of said complaint, the Original Complainant Sulochanabai died on 02.08.2015. Thereafter, her daughter i.e. respondent No. 1 filed Exhibit 87 an application seeking leave to pursue the complaint on behalf of her deceased mother. On 01.10.2016, the learned trial Court passed an order taking into consideration Section 198 (1) (c) of Cr.P.C. as well as 6 926criwp71.2019 judgment Chapter - XIX and XX of the IPC and permitted respondent No. 1 to continue with the prosecution.
8. On 19.11.2018 the learned Revisional Court has passed impugned order and confirmed the order passed by the trial Court on dated 01.10.2016 considering the law laid down in Ashwini Nandubhai Vs. State of Maharshtra and Anr. 1967 AIR 983 and C.M. Stephen Vs. John Manjooran cited therein.
9. Section 198 provides as under :
"198. Prosecution for offences against marriage.--(1) No Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter XX of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence:
Provided that--
(a) Where such person is under the age of eighteen years, or is an idiot or a lunatic, or is from sickness or infirmity unable to make a complaint, or is a woman who, according to the local customs and manners, ought not to be compelled to appear in public, some other person may, with the leave of the Court, make a complaint on his or her behalf;
(b) Where such person is the husband and he is serving in any of the Armed Forces of the Union under conditions which are certified by his Commanding Officer as precluding him from obtaining leave of absence to enable him to make a complaint in person, some other person authorised by the husband in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (4) may make a complaint on his behalf;
(c) Where the person aggrieved by an offence punishable under 1[section 494 or section 495] of the 7 926criwp71.2019 judgment Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) is the wife, complaint may be made on her behalf by her father, mother, brother, sister, son or daughter or by her father's or mother's brother or sister, or, with the leave of the Court, by any other person related to her by blood, marriage or adoption".
10. The deceased Complainant Smt. Sulochanabai i.e. the mother of the present respondent instituted a private Complaint against the present petitioner and others for the offence punishable under Section 494 of the IPC i.e. bigamy and she died during pendency of the complaint. Therefore, as per the provisions of Section 198 (1) (c) of the Cr.P.C., the respondent No. 1, being the daughter of the Complainant having every right to prosecute the said complaint. The findings recorded by both the Courts below do not appear perverse, illegal, hence, no case is made out to interfere with the said findings. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
( Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, J. ) Mahajansb/