JUDGMENT

N.J. Jamadar, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and with the consent of the counsels of the parties, heard finally.

2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1963 the petitioners, the relatives of the husband of the married woman-respondent No. 2 have prayed for, inter-alia, quashing the prosecution initiated on the strength of the first information report No. 509 of 2018 registered at Juhu Police Station, Mumbai for the offences punishable under sections 498-A, 354, 377, 406 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (''IPC'').

3. Initially, the petition was filed by the four petitioners. The petition came to be disposed of as withdrawn qua the petitioner No. 4-Shri Manoj Agrawal. The petition, thus, proceeded with in respect of petitioner Nos. 1 to 3.

4. The substance to the petition can be stated in brief as under:-

a) The marriage of Priyanka-respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as ''the first informant'') was solemnized with Krishna Lohiya on 11th December 2001. The petitioner No. 1 Kamlesh is the brother of Krishna. The petitioner No. 2-Smt. Shweta is the wife of Kamlesh. The petitioner No. 3-Smt. Premlata is the sister of Krishna. Shri Manoj Agrawal, who withdrew the petition, is the husband of Smt. Premlata.

b) The petitioners assert that since inception of the marital life between the first informant and Krishna, there was matrimonial discord. The first informant used to rake up quarrels with Krishna. The widowed mother and widowed sister of Krishna were staying with Krishna and the first informant. The first informant made the lives of her husband and widowed mother-in-law and sister-in-law miserable by her quarrelsome conduct. There was certain financial transaction between Krishna and the father of the first informant, which also contributed to the disputes between the first informant and Krishna.

c) As the marital discord between the first informant and Krishna escalated resulting in institution of multiple proceedings, the first informant has lodged the FIR on 25th October 2018 with Juhu Police Station making absolutely false, baseless and vague allegations.

d) The petitioners aver that the first informant and Krishna were residing separately since beginning of the marital life. The petitioners have been residing separately and never shared the household with the first informant. The petitioners used to occasionally visit the matrimonial home of the first informant, mostly during festivals. There was no cause or occasion for the petitioners to ill-treat and harass the first informant. The petitioners have been falsely implicated by the first informant with an oblique and ulterior motive. The continuation of the prosecution on the basis of such patently false, vague and baseless allegations amounts to abuse of the process. Hence, this petition to quash the proceedings arising out of C.R. No. 509-2018 qua the petitioners.

5. We have heard Shri Subhash Jha, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Satyavrat Joshi, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2-the first informant and Ms. Sangita Shinde, the learned APP for the State, at some length.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously urged that the instant prosecution of the petitioners is yet another manifestation of a clear abuse of the provisions contained in section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (''IPC''). Drawing our attention to the genesis of the prosecution, which is essentially rooted in the marital discord between the first informant and Krishna, the learned counsel would urge that the petitioners, who are the relatives of Krishna, are roped in to wreak vengeance and subject them to persecution, under the guise of outwardly legitimate prosecution.

7. Shri Jha took us through the allegations in the FIR and urged, with a degree of vehemence, that even if the allegations in the FIR are taken as a gospel truth, no offence can be s