Important Point - It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove are prima facie in nature and confined to the adjudication of the present application.

S.S. SHINDE, J.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of parties.

This application is filed with the following prayer :-

“B. The FIR bearing Crime No. I-377/2016 registered at Police of City, Hingoli U/Sec. 498-A, 323, 504 r/w 34 of I.P. Code against the petitioners be kindly quashed and set aside further with a direction to quash and set aside all other proceedings taken-up on the basis of the said FIR”

2. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants, submits that there is delay in lodging the FIR. The FIR is filed after the husband of respondent No.2, Mr. Prashant Bhagat has filed petition for dissolution of marriage. He submits that even if the allegations in the FIR are considered in its entirety, the alleged offences are not disclosed.

3. He further submits that though the applicant No. 3 in Aadhar Card is shown as resident of Buldana, he is a practicing advocate at Aurangabad. He submits that the applicant Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 to 12 are residing separately and not in the matrimonial home of respondent No. 2. He submits that even the married sister of the husband are made accused. There are general allegations in the FIR without attributing any overt act, qua each of the applicants. There are no dates of incident mentioned in the FIR and on such omnibus allegations, there are bleak chances of conviction of the applicants. Therefore, further continuation of the proceedings based upon the crime No.I-377/2016, will be an exercise in futility and abuse of process of law. Therefore, he submits that this application may be allowed.

4. On the other hand, learned APP invited our attention to the statements of various witnesses and submits that the allegations made against the applicants in the FIR are supported by the witnesses. Therefore, the application for quashing the FIR may be rejected.

5. Learned Counsel for respondent No.2 submits that apart from the allegations in the FIR, the respondent No.2 filed application on 30th March, 2016 to the P.I. of police station Hingoli, making specific allegations against applicant No.2. He also invites our attention to the other proceeding initiated by respondent No.2 and also letter addressed to the Superintendent of Police on 9.9.2016 by her. It is submitted that the allegations in the FIR will have to be taken as it is and can be tested only during trial. He invited our attention to the statement of witnesses and submits that the application may be rejected.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the applicants, learned APP for the State and counsel for respondent No.2 at length. With their able assistance perused the grounds taken in the application, annexures thereto, contents of the FIR and also investigation papers, reply filed by respondent No.2 so also additional affidavit filed by the applicants. So far as the applicant No.2 is concerned, in addition to allegations in the FIR we find that there is further complaint filed by the informant against him addressed to Police Inspector, Hingoli. Therefore, keeping in view the allegations in the FIR as against applicant Nos. 2, 3, 11, 12 and 13, though residing separately, we are not inclined to entertain their prayer for quashing the FIR against them. Hence, their prayer for quashing the FIR, stands rejected.

7. So far as applicant Nos. 1,4,5,6,7,8,9 and 10 are concerned, the allegations against them in the FIR are reproduced hereinbelow :

xxxxx

8. We have also carefully perused the statements of the witnesses. Upon careful perusal of the allegations in the FIR, so also the statement of the witnesses, the allegations against the applicant Nos. 1,4,5,6,7,8,9 and 10 are omnibus, without attributing any specific overt act against them and without mentioning specific incident. We are satisfied that those applicants are not residing at matrimonial place and residing at different places. Some of the places are far away from Buldana. Therefore, keeping in view the exposition of law by the Supreme Cou