IMPORTANT POINT
Vague and non-specific allegations in a criminal complaint do not suffice for prosecution under IPC, particularly in cases involving multiple family members where individual roles must be clearly defined.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

ABHAY S.WAGHWASE,J. - By instant proceedings, the applicants, who are husband, mother-in-law, brothers-in-law and other relatives of husband of respondent no.2, are seeking quashment of FIR No. 142 of 2022 registered with Upanagar Police Station, Nandurbar for the offences punishable under Ss. 498-A, 494, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) which is at the instance of respondent no.2 and the criminal case arising out of it bearing RCC No. 223 of 2022 pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nandurbar.

2. Law was set into motion by respondent no.2 alleging that after her marriage with applicant no.1 Dnyaneshwar on 28/5/2010, she went to reside with her husband and in-laws. According to her, there were disputes and quarrel between her father father-in-law and mother-in-law as mother-in-law was keen in performing marriage of applicant no.1 husband with daughter of her brother and to this, father-in-law had strongly opposed. In this background, she claims that she was humiliated and insulted and subjected to mental cruelty. According to her, the husband and in-laws were also upset for delivering girl child. When her parents questioned the husband and in-laws for not taking her back, mother-in-law abused them in filthy language and her father was beaten by husband. There was beating to her uncle when they had been to lodge complaint at Mhasawad Police Station. She also speaks about maintenance proceedings filed by her at Nandurbar. Further, according to her, when she had been to attend one marriage on 9/3/2022, there she learnt that her husband had performed second marriage. Hence the instant FIR.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the complaint is false and motivated one. That, the instances quoted in the FIR are more than a decade old. That there was no ill-treatment as alleged by either husband or in-laws. False and concocted story is set up in the FIR. Learned counsel pointed out that even otherwise, her husband and applicant no.8 have already sought withdrawal of the application to their extent. Therefore, only application as against the mother-inlaw, brothers-in-law and other relatives, who are residents of different places, remained for consideration. The allegations as against them are non-specific and general in nature. Roles played by them or particulars and details of the ill-treatment allegedly given by them is not spelt out in the complaint and thus, according to him, prosecution as against applicant nos.2 to 7 is misdirected and is with ulterior motive and hence, it is prayed that relief as prayed be granted.

4. Learned APP also invited our attention to the papers on record, more particularly the FIR, and pointed out that it is clear that after few days of marriage, respondent no.2 was ill-treated. That there were abuses and insult by mother-in-law and other applicants. They were upset for delivering girl child and there are allegations of beating to her father and brother. That, she was neglected and therefore she went to her parents and filed maintenance proceedings. In March 2022, respondent no.2 learnt about second marriage performed by her husband and hence complaint was lodged and it was investigated and complicity of all accused persons is sufficiently established and as such, according to learned APP, it is not a fit case for grant of relief as prayed.

5. Learned Advocate for respondent no.2 was absent when the matter was called out. Therefore the matter is taken up on merits.

6. We have given anxious thought to the submissions advanced by each side.

7. There is no dispute that after filing of the proceedings, at the time of admission, when this court showed disinclination to grant relief to applicant no.1 husband and applicant no.8 Yogita, learned counsel for the applicants sought withdrawal of the application to their extent. Therefore, now it is to be seen whether applicant nos. 2 to 7 are entitled for relief of quashment as prayed by them.

8. The FIR dt