The court emphasized the need for specific and substantive allegations in FIRs to warrant the continuation of criminal proceedings, especially in cases involving matrimonial disputes and allegations against relatives.

JUDGMENT

V.K.JADHAV,J. - Heard finally with consent of the parties at the admission stage.

2. The learned counsel for the applicants, on instructions, seeks leave to withdraw the application to the extent of applicant No.1 - Jyoti Rajendra Thombare. Leave granted. Application of applicant No.1 - Jyoti is disposed of as withdrawn.

3. This application pertains to quashing of FIR No.5 of 2020 dated 04-01-2020 for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 324, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Furthermore, during the pendency of this application, the charge-sheet has been submitted and the amendment is carried out under the order of this Court in the prayer clause for quashing of the proceedings bearing R.C.C. No.1392 of 2020 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Aurangabad, in connection with the aforesaid crime.

4. The learned counsel for the applicants submits that though the names of applicant Nos.2 and 3 are mentioned in the FIR, however, the allegations have been made mainly against the co- accused husband and sister in law - Jyoti Rajendra Thombare.

Applicant No.2 - Rajendra Tatyarao Thombare is husband of applicant No.1 - Jyoti (sister in law), whereas applicant No.3 - Surekha Bhaskar Jivrag is another married sister in law. The learned counsel for the applicants submits that general allegations have been made against applicant Nos.2 and 3 without quoting any specific incident as such.

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2-informant submits that the names of applicant Nos.2 and 3 are mentioned in the FIR with specific role attributed to each of them. The learned counsel submits that applicant No.3-Surekha resides in Aurangabad itself and she used to visit the matrimonial house of respondent No.2. There are allegations that all the accused persons have harassed respondent No.2-informant on account of non-fulfilment of unlawful demand of cash amount for purchasing a shop. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that there is no substance in this application and application is liable to be dismissed.

6. We have heard learned APP for the respondent No.1-State. We have carefully gone through the contents of the FIR. We have also carefully gone through the charge-sheet. It appears that the allegations have been made mainly against co-accused husband and applicant No.1 - Jyoti (sister in law), whose application seeking quashing of FIR is withdrawn today.

Though the names of applicant Nos.2 and 3 are mentioned in the FIR and they have been impleaded as accused and charge-sheet has been submitted against them, however, there are general allegations against them without quoting any specifc incident.

7. In the case of Geeta Mehrotra and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors., reported in AIR 2013 SC 181, the Hon'ble Supreme Court by referring the observations made in the case of Ramesh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2005) SCC (Cri.) 735 to 738, in paragraph No.17 has made the following observations:

"17. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in this matter had been pleased to hold that the bald allegations made against the sister-in-law by the complainant appeared to suggest the anxiety of the informant to rope in as many of the husband's relatives as possible. It was held that neither the FIR nor the charge sheet furnished the legal basis for the magistrate to take cognizance of the offences alleged against the appellants. The learned Judges were pleased to hold that looking to the allegations in the FIR and the contents of the charge-sheet, none of the alleged offences under Sections 498A, 406 and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act were made against the married sister of the complainant's husband who was undisputedly not living with the family of the complainant's husband. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court were pleased to hold that the High Court ought not to have relegated the sister-in- law to the ordeal of trial. Accordingly, the proceedings against the appellants were