Specific instances of involvement in the alleged offence are crucial in determining the applicability of the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, and the genuineness of the allegations is to be tested at the trial stage.

JUDGMENT

Sunil B. Shukre, J. - Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the parties.

2. The applicants who are accused Nos.1 to 6 in Crime No.62/2022 registered at Police Station Akot District Akola for the offence punishable under Section 498 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code have approached this Court seeking quashing of the First Information Report.

3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the applicants that the First Information Report has been registered under Section 498 of the Indian Penal Code and this offence is not the offence of cruelty but offence of enticing or taking away or detaining with criminal intent a married woman, which offence is not at all disclosed by the allegations made in the complaint filed against the applicants.

4. We have gone through the printed First Information Report and as rightly submitted by learned APP, there appears to be a typographical error in registering the offence. The Investigating Officer ought to have registered the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code which is an offence of cruelty by husband against his wife. Then, in the case diary, which is produced before us, the offence which has been registered against the applicants has been clearly stated to be one punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. So, it is clear that there is some typographical error in the printed First Information Report where instead of Section 498-A, Section 498 has been recorded. The mistake committed by the Investigating Officer shall be rectified by him in due course of time.

5. It is the further contention of learned counsel for the applicants that the allegations in the First Information Report are of general nature and that they are also vague, which do not disclose any cognizable offence much less any offence of cruelty punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. He further submits that there is a tendency among a distraught wife to make false allegations against all the relatives and try to rope in all the relatives, so that some pressure is created upon the husband. He relied upon the law laid down in this regard by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and others Vs. State of Bihar and others reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 162.

6. Disagreeing with the afore-stated contentions of learned counsel for the applicants, learned APP and so also learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submit that the allegations are not of general nature, that they are very specific in nature and that the complainant has not filed her complaint against all these applicants with some hidden motive.

7. The rival arguments can be appreciated, if the First Information Report and the statements of witnesses recorded by the Police during the course of investigation are examined and considered appropriately. It is well settled law that the allegations made by the witnesses against the accused persons are to be scrutinized on their face value taking them to be true and it is not permissible for the Court to go into the aspect of reliability or credibility or trustworthiness of the witnesses as the later aspect belongs to the domain of trial of the accused persons. Bearing in mind the principles of law, let us now proceed to scrutinize and examine the First Information Report and also the statement of witnesses, which have been made available to us for perusal by learned APP.

8. On going through the allegations made in the First Information Report, we find that the allegations are not vague in nature. They are not general in nature either and that they specifically assign a role to each of the applicants which they had performed while subjecting the respondent No.2 to cruelty and harassment.

9. It appears to us that the entire story of woes of respondent No.2 began, going by the allegations made against applicant No.1, after the applicant No.1 established extra marital relations with