S.S. Shinde, J.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally at the request of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2. At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the applicants, on instructions, seeks leave to withdraw the application to the extent of applicants no. 1 to 3 with permission to avail of appropriate remedy of filing application for discharge before the concerned Court, in the event of filing charge-sheet by the Investigating Officer.

3. The brief facts for filing this application are as under :-

It is the case of the respondent no.2 that, her marriage came to be performed with applicant no.1 on 15th May, 2015 as per Hindu Rites and Rituals at Aurangabad and in the marriage, father of respondent no.2 had given utensils and cash of Rs. 7 Lacs. After the marriage, she had been to the house of applicants at Nashik for cohabitation, wherein for about 3 months she was treated well and thereafter, from 5th August, 2015, the applicants started ill treating her. It is the case of respondent no.2 that, applicant no.1 was saying that, he needs a boy child and on that count there was ill treatment to her. It is the case of the respondent no.2 that, respondent no.2 was driven out of house by the applicants on 17th November, 2015, thereby stating that, she should bring an amount of Rs.22 to 25 lacs from her parents for construction of house/Wada. In spite of understanding given by the parents of respondent no.2 to the applicants, the applicants stated them that they should not sent respondent no.2 without money. It is the case of respondent no.2 that, respondent no.2 also filed a complaint on 5th April, 2016 with the Women Help Desk, Office of Commissioner of Police, Aurangabad, but the applicants did not remain present there, and therefore, she filed a complaint with the Police Station, CIDCO, Aurangabad against the present applicants and one Shantanu Manik Yelmane. On the basis of above complaint, the police authorities have registered an offence bearing Crime No. 473/2016 with the Police Station, CIDCO, Aurangabad for an offences under Sections 498A, 504, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is the case of respondent no.2 that, the respondent no.2 has also filed Misc. Criminal Application No.311/2011 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act on 27th May, 2016 i.e. prior to registration of above offence.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the applicants invites our attention to the allegations in the first information report and submits that, even if the allegations in the first information report are considered/read in its entirety, the alleged offences are not disclosed. There are general allegations without attributing any specific overt acts to each of the applicants. It is submitted that, the entire series of alleged incidents had taken place at Nashik but with an intention to harass the applicants, respondent no.2 filed the complaint with Police Station CIDCO, Aurangabad. It is submitted that, the applicants are educated and from reputed family and there is no question of demand of amount of Rs. 22 to 25 Lacs as alleged in the first information report. He submits that, applicant no.3 - Sarika W/o Manik Ylmane, applicant no.5 - Shubhangi W/o Dattatraya Akhade and applicant no.6 - Suvarna W/o Mukunda Gore are the sisters of husband of respondent no.2 and are residing separately with their husbands at different places. Applicant no.7 - Dattatraya S/o Ganpat Akhade and applicant no.8 - Mukunda S/o Bishwambhar Gore are the husbands of inlaws of respondent no.2. Therefore, there is no question of illtreating respondent no.2 by the applicants. It is further submitted that, applicant no.4 is minor, aged of 16 years and no way he is connected with the allegations in the first information report. He submits that, applicant no.10 is not a relative of husband of respondent no.2, and therefore, the offence punishable u