The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of legal principles to categorize the case for quashing the FIR based on the disclosure of alleged offences and the inherent probability of the allegations.

S.S. Shinde, J.

1. Heard.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and heard finally with the consent of the parties.

3. This Application is filed for quashing and setting aside the First Information Report vide Crime No. 270/2016 registered at Satara Police Station, Aurangabad, on 26th July, 2016, and further criminal proceeding bearing R.C.C. No. 2639/2016, pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad, against the applicants for the offence punishable under Section 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the applicants invites our attention to the allegations in the FIR, and submits that the allegations as against applicant nos.2 to 4 are inherently improbable inasmuch as the marriage of the informant with applicant no.1 was solemnized on 29th December, 1996. Thereafter, the informant stayed in the matrimonial home at Latur till 1st February, 2000. It is submitted that thereafter, the informant shifted to Aurangabad, and since then residing with her brother. It is submitted that the FIR is belatedly registered on 26th July, 2016, making allegations therein from the year 1998. It is submitted that the applicants had no occasion to travel to Aurangabad and to visit the house of the brother of the informant, and give her ill-treatment or harassment. The distance between Aurangabad and Latur is more than 260 kilo meters. It is submitted that no any specific incident with specific date has been mentioned in the FIR. He submits that the allegations are omnibus, and therefore, the FIR deserves to be quashed.

5. On the other hand, the learned APP appearing for the respondent–State, and the learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2 relying upon the allegations in the FIR and investigation papers, submits that, the alleged offences have been disclosed, and therefore, further investigation is necessary.

6. We have given careful consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the applicants, the learned APP appearing for the respondent–State, and the learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 2. With their able assistance, we have perused the allegations in the FIR, and also the statements of the witnesses recorded by the Investigating Officer, and also all other material collected by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation. It appears that after investigation the charge-sheet has been filed by the Investigating Officer. It appears that the marriage of respondent no.2 i.e. informant was solemnized on 29th December, 1996, with applicant no.1 at Latur. Since then she started residing in the matrimonial home. It is stated in the FIR that from the said wedlock, respondent no.2 gave birth to one female child on 23rd September, 1998. There are no allegations of ill-treatment or harassment till that time. It is alleged that since respondent no.2 gave birth to female child the members of the matrimonial home started giving ill-treatment to her; they also started giving harassment and ill-treatment on some trifle grounds. It appears that the informant came to Aurangabad on 1st February, 2000, and she got employment in Lokmanya Blood Bank, Adalat Road, Aurnagabad, and simultaneously she was prosecuting her studies. She started residing with her brother, namely Prakash Surwase in the rented premises. It is further alleged that during the said period applicant no.1 i.e. husband got addicted to liquor, and used to ask for money from her salary and demanded Rs.2 lacs for the purpose of construction of house at Latur. So far applicant nos.2 to 4 are concerned, they used to visit the house of her brother, and harassed her and used to make demand of Rs.2 lacs for the purpose of construction of house at Latur. They used to ill-treat mentally as well as physically and also used to give fist blows to her. The said ill-treatment continued even after the death of mother of the informant i.e. on 30th January, 2010. She was not able t