The Bombay High Court has refused to quash a criminal case against a woman accused of concealing her subsisting first marriage before marrying another man, holding that the allegations against her require a full criminal trial. However, the Court granted relief to her mother and brother, finding that the FIR contained only vague and general allegations against them.
Background of the Case
The petition was filed by Swati Raosaheb More, her mother Jayshree More, and her brother Deepak More, seeking to quash an FIR registered in 2017 at Dattawadi Police Station, Pune.
The complaint was lodged by Swati's mother-in-law, who alleged that Swati had married her son through an online matrimonial platform while her earlier marriage was still legally subsisting. The FIR also alleged cheating, concealment of marital status, criminal intimidation, extortion, and other offences.
The petitioners argued that the criminal case arose out of a matrimonial dispute and was merely a counterblast to complaints previously filed by Swati against her husband and his family. They also contended that the allegations did not satisfy the legal ingredients of the offences invoked.
Court's Observations
Justice Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale examined the sequence of events and noted that the record showed Swati had admitted her earlier marriage while also entering into a second marriage before obtaining any decree dissolving the first one.
The Court observed that there was sufficient material to prima facie examine allegations that she had represented herself as unmarried and later entered into the second marriage despite the earlier marriage continuing in law.
Rejecting the argument that the alleged demand of ₹25 lakh was merely a claim for alimony, the Court observed:
“The Petitioner now cannot term her conduct of demanding Rs.25 lacs as a demand of alimony. In my opinion, the argument is preposterous, totally untenable and surprising.”
The Court further held that the allegations against Swati disclosed a prima facie case and therefore did not warrant the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to terminate the prosecution at the threshold.
Relief Granted to Mother and Brother
While refusing relief to Swati, the High Court found the allegations against her mother and brother to be general and lacking specific accusations linking them to the alleged offences.
The Court observed:
“It is not uncommon, for the relatives and dear ones to be roped into and accused of criminal offences on the basis of generalized and vague allegations.”
Holding that no prima facie case was disclosed against them, the Court concluded that continuing criminal proceedings against the two relatives would amount to misuse of the criminal process.
Decision
The Bombay High Court partly allowed the writ petition. It quashed the FIR and the consequential charge sheet only against Swati More's mother and brother.
However, the Court dismissed the petition filed by Swati Raosaheb More and directed that the criminal proceedings against her and the other co-accused shall continue in accordance with law.
Case Details
Case Title: Swati Raosaheb More (Swati Sunny Dimber) & Others v. State of Maharashtra & Another
Case Number: Criminal Writ Petition No. 2578 of 2018
Judge: Justice Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale
Decision Date: 10 June 2026
