The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for specificity and certainty in allegations of cruelty under Section 498A of the Penal Code, and the caution required in roping in distant relatives in matrimonial disputes.

JUDGMENT

N.J. Jamadar, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and with the consent of the Counsels for the parties, heard finally, at the stage of admission.

2. By virtue of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("the Code") the applicants, who are the relatives of the husband of respondent no.2 - the first informant, seek the quashment of First Informant Report No.351 of 2020 ("FIR") registered with Khadaki Police Station, Pune, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("the Penal Code"), at the instance of the respondent no.2 the first informant, qua the applicants.

3. The background facts can be stated in brief as under:

(a) The marriage of the first informant - Pradnya was solemnized with Dheeraj (A1) on 29th November, 2009. Applicant no.2 Dineshchandra is the father of Dheeraj (A1). Applicant no.3 Sonal and applicant no.4 - Mrudula are the married sisters of Dheeraj (A1). Applicant no.1 - Vijayalaxmi is the mother of Dheeraj (A1). The marriage of applicant nos.1 and 2 was solemnized in the year 2010, post the marriage of the first informant and Dheeraj (A1).

(b) The applicants aver that Dheeraj (A1) and the first informant were not at all happy with the marriage of applicant nos.1 and 2 and, thus, applicant nos.1 and 2 resided separately from the accused nos.1 and the first informant, since beginning of the marital life of applicant nos.1 and 2. According to the applicants, the marital life of the first informant and Dheeraj (A1) was afflicted with discord since inception as the first informant entertained a strong suspicion that Dheeraj (A1) had extramarital affairs. However, the applicants had no occasion to be part of, much less interfere with, the matrimonial life of Dheeraj (A1) and the first informant. Applicant nos.3 and 4, who are the married sisters of accused no.1 never resided with Dheeraj (A1) and the first informant. All the applicants have been residing separately from Dheeraj (A1) and the first informant. As the marital discord had been continual and reached its peak in the year 2020, the applicants have been roped in with an oblique motive.

(c) The applicants assert that false and baseless allegations have been made against the applicants for the only reason that they are the relatives of Dheeraj (A1) so as to bring Dheeraj (A1) and the applicants to terms. In the backdrop of the sound financial position of applicant no.2, there was no cause or occasion for applicant no.2 to make the alleged unlawful demand. Nor applicant no.1, who entered the family frame, as the second wife of applicant no.2, after the marriage of Dheeraj (A1) and the first informant, had ever played the role attributed to her by the first informant. In the backdrop of the allegations in the FIR, according to the applicants, no prima facie case is made out for the offences for which the applicants have been arraigned. In such circumstances, the applicants cannot be compelled to undergo the rigours of trial. It would amount to abuse of the process of the Court. Hence this application for quashment of the FIR and the consequent proceedings.

4. We have heard Mr. Vijay Patil, the learned Counsel for the applicants, Mr. S. R. Shinde, the learned APP for the State and Mr. Abhijeet Desai, the learned Counsel for the first informant/respondent no.2, at length. With the assistance of the learned Counsels for the parties, we have perused the material on record.

5. Before we advert to note the rival submissions canvassed across the bar, we deem it appropriate to notice the gravamen of indictment, especially against the applicants, as borne out by the allegations in the FIR.

I] The tenor of the FIR is that, post marriage, the initial cause of the discord between Dheeraj (A1) and the first informant was the alleged neglect on the part of Dheeraj (A1). The first informant alleged that Dheeraj (A1) returned home late, spent unreasonably long time o