The central legal point established in the judgment is that in matrimonial disputes, vague and general allegations against distant relatives may amount to an abuse of process of law, warranting the quashing of the FIR and charge-sheet.

JUDGMENT :

RAJESH S. PATIL, J.

1. By the present application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicants who are original accused are praying for quashing of FIR No. 101/2021 registered with Police Station Murum, Taluka Omerga, District Osmanabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and further for quashing the charge-sheet No. 69/2021 along with the proceeding bearing RCC No. 155/2021 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Omerga, District Osmanabad.

A. FACTS :

2. The respondent No. 2 has lodged FIR. It is the case of the respondent No. 2 in FIR that the applicant No. 4 and respondent No. 2 got married on 13.12.2009 as per Hindu rites and customs by following all rituals and by giving articles at Ahmedpur. Out of the said wedlock, the respondent No. 2 has begotten two daughters namely Purva and Shrayu. Purva is studying in 4th standard, whereas Shrayu is studying in Nursery. After marriage, respondent No. 2 was treated well for the period of two to three years. From the year 2013 onwards, all the accused started demanding monies and ill-treated her. They demanded amount of Rs. 2 Lakhs for purchasing Television and Cot (Diwan). They used to insult her by saying that she is a woman having bad omen, she cannot give birth to a male child and she does not have good looks. She was not provided food and she was ill-treated physically and mentally by the applicants. Applicant No. 1 – mother-in-law and applicant No. 4 – husband have also beaten her and driven her out of matrimonial house along with her two children and as such she is residing at her parents house since last one month.

3. It is further stated that on 09.05.2021 at about 7 a.m., applicant Nos. 2 to 5, 7 and 9 came to her parent’s house and demanded custody of daughters, however, on refusal; the above said applicants had beaten her by kicks and blows, so also she was threatened of life by the above said applicants. Hence, she filed complaint with the Police, which was registered as FIR.

B. SUBMISSION OF PARTIES :

4. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Jayant Patil, for the applicants, Learned APP Mr. Salgare for State and learned Advocate Mr. Barde, for respondent No. 2.

5. At the outset, after hearing the arguments when disinclination was shown as against applicant Nos. 1, 3 and 4 is concerned, learned Advocate for the applicants, on instructions, sought leave to withdraw the application as far as applicant Nos. 1, 3 and 4. Leave granted. Criminal Application is permitted to withdraw as far as applicant Nos. 1, 3 and 4. Thereafter, submissions were made only as far as applicant Nos. 2 and 5 to 10 are concerned.

6. According to the learned Advocate Mr. Jayant Patil for the applicants, so far as applicant Nos. 2 and 5 to 10 are concerned, they have not committed any offence as alleged by the respondent No. 2 and only with a view to harass the applicants, she has lodged the present complaint. He further submitted that after the marriage of applicant No. 4, the couple started residing separately from other applicants along with their two daughters since March, 2010, in the house at first floor. Applicant No.2 Rahul is also residing separately from other applicants since December, 2010 along with his wife and one daughter. Though, the applicants are residing in same building but they have separate residence and hence, there is no question to ill-treating the respondent No. 2.

7. He further stated that there are no specific allegations against the applicant Nos. 2 and 5 to 10 and only with a view to harass the applicants, the respondent No. 2 has filed a false FIR against the petitioners. Hence, the same needs to be quashed and set aside.

8. Learned Advocate for the applicants relied upon the judgments in the matter of Gian Singh Vs. State Punjab, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Geeta Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P., reported in AIR 2013 SC 181.

9. Per contra, the learned APP support