The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for specific and particular allegations to constitute an offence, the caution to be exercised in summoning accused in a criminal case, and the guidelines for quashing proceedings under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

JUDGMENT

V L Achliya, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Advocates representing the parties, the petition is heard finally.

2. By this application filed U/Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicants-original accused nos.4 to 7 in Misc. Criminal Case No.956/2018, pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate, First Class Court No.5, Beed have prayed for setting aside the order of issuance of process dated 17.10.2018 passed in the case and to quash criminal proceedings to the extent of applicants-accused nos.4 to 7.

3. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and respondents. Perused the copy of private complaint filed by respondent - complainant and order of issuance of process passed thereon.

4. Mr.M.A. Jahagirdar, learned counsel for the applicants assailed the order of issuance of process with contention that the order has been passed without proper application of mind. It is submitted that even if the allegations made in the complaint are taken to its face value and accepted as true, still it make out no case to issue process against accused nos.4 to 7. By referring the allegations against the accused nos.4 to 7, learned counsel submits that the allegations are vague and general in nature. It is submitted that no specific act amounting to offence punishable U/Sec. 498-A, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code has been attributed to the applicants. The accused nos.1 to 3 are the husband and in laws of respondent - complainant residing at Khamkheda, Tq. and Dist. Beed. The accused nos.4, 6 and 7 are married sisters of accused no.1. They are residing at their respective matrimonial home much prior to marriage of the respondent/complainant with accused no.1. The accused no.5 is the husband of accused no.4. By referring the allegations made in the complaint, learned counsel submits that, it is highly improbable to accept that the accused nos.4 to 7 joining hands with accused nos.1 to 3 cause illtreatment and harassment to respondent - complainant. It is pointed out that though it is mentioned in the complaint that accused nos.1 to 7 have forcibly administered poison to complainant but in the verification statement recorded on oath, the complainant has stated that the poison was administered by her husband. Neither the presence of present accused shown at the time of alleged incident of administration of poison nor any overt act is attributed to them. In the background of overall facts of the case and the allegations made in the complaint, learned counsel submits that filing of such complaint at the instance of the respondent - complainant is nothing but gross abuse of process of law. For no offence committed on the part of accused nos.4 to 7, they have been falsely implicated in the case only due to matrimonial discord between the respondent - complainant and accused no.1. In order to harass the entire members of family of accused no.1, they are made accused. In order to meet the ends of justice and to save them from further humiliation and harassment and ordeal of trial urged to invoke powers U/Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent - complainant opposed the application with contention that the application is not maintainable. It is submitted that as against the order of issuance of process, the applicants are provided remedy by way of revision before the Sessions Court. So far as the merit of case, learned counsel submits that the allegations made in the complaint are more than sufficient to make out case for issuance of process U/Sec. 498-A, 323, 504, 506 r/w section 34 of the IPC. It is submitted that though the applicants have pleaded that they are residing far away from the place of residence of the accused nos.1 to 3 and they are residing at their respective matrimonial houses but the notice dated 20th August, 2018 issued by the accused no.1 reveals that notice was sent from Advocate