JUDGMENT :- Heard learned Counsel for applicants and learned APP for State. None appears for Respondent No.2 though served. 2. Rule, made returnable forthwith, heard finally. 3. By the present application, proceedings, vide Crime No.I-97/2010, registered at Badnapur Police Station, District Jalna, for offences under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 494 of Indian Penal Code; and under Sections 3 and 4 of The Dowry Prohibition Act, registered on 25th June, 2010, are sought to be quashed and set aside. 4. Respondent No.2 married to Santosh Satpute on 4.5.2008. She claimed that in the marriage, gift articles and a dowry of Rs.1.05,000/- was paid to the in-laws. After the marriage, the named applicants - (Bansi, Eknath Babasaheb) were insisting for bringing Rs.50.000/- from her parents to facilitate purchase of a motor-cycle by her husband Santosh Satpute. Since she could not comply the demand. her husband assaulted her; her parents tried to convince, but there was no useful purpose. Since last six months, she was residing with her parents. She informed in the F.I.R. that the applicant nos.1, 2 and 3 have caused her mental and physical cruelty by persistently making demand of Rs.50,000/- for purchase of motor-cycle. 5. The learned Counsel for the applicants/accused submits, that the prosecution, as a whole, if taken to its face value, would not be maintainable against the applicants/accused. as they are not residing in the family or with family of the husband; they are distant relatives. One of the applicants Bansi, is residing at Aurangabad, in employment, will seldom spare time to attend the matrimonial controversy/feud between the couple. The counsel also submits, role of applicant no.4 Saroja @ Sarodabai, will not be attracting to provisions of Section 498-A or 494 of IPC, least sections 323, 504 and 506 thereof. 6. The learned Counsel has placed reliance to the judgment in the matter of Preeti Gupta & Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand, reported in 2010 ALLMR (Cri) 2947. The Hon'ble Lordships of the Apex Court in the said judgment, referred to the three-judge Bench judgment in the matter of Inder Mohan Goswami and Anr. Vs. State of Uttaranchal and Ors., 2007 ALLMR (Cri) 3302, paragraph 24 thereof, reads as under. “24. Vs. State of Jharkhand, reported in 2010 ALLMR (Cri) 2947. The Hon'ble Lordships of the Apex Court in the said judgment, referred to the three-judge Bench judgment in the matter of Inder Mohan Goswami and Anr. Vs. State of Uttaranchal and Ors., 2007 ALLMR (Cri) 3302, paragraph 24 thereof, reads as under. “24. Inherent powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C. though wide have to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in this section itself. Authority of the court exists for the advancement of justice. If any abuse of the process leading to injustice is brought to the notice of the court, then the Court would be justified in preventing injustice by invoking inherent powers in absence of specific provisions in the Statute.” 7. The said case of Preeti Gupta was revolving to implication of the distant relatives, who are either residing at Goregaon in Maharashtra and in some remote patt of Gujarat while the matrimonial abode was at Ranchi. 8. The Hon’ble Lordships also found there are no specific allegations against those of the appellants nor the witnesses have alleged any role to the appellants. 9. Now, going by text of the F.I.R. and even the statements of the witnesses, I find specific role is attributed to the applicant nos.1. 2 and 3 as to how they facilitated demand of Rs.50.000/-, persistently nagged the victim and her parents for non-compliance of the demand. This humiliation was certainly surmounting the effects of Section 498-A of IPC. The ignonminy felt by the wife is reflected in her F.I.R.. 10. There is no quarrel on the legal proposition as the Lordships have observed in the matter of Preeti Gupta that criminal trials lead to immense sufferings for all concerned. Even ultimate acquittal in the trial may also not be able to wipe out the deep scars of suffering of ignominy. The Lordships have also observed, when the facts and circumstances of the case are considered in the background of legal principles set out in preceding paragraphs, then it would be unfair to compel the appellants to undergo the rigmarole of a criminal trial. 11. Reverting to the facts, as narrated in the F.I.R., I quite see that the role of applicant nos. 1. 11. Reverting to the facts, as narrated in the F.I.R., I quite see that the role of applicant nos. 1. 2 and 3 is surfacing, inviting ingredients of Section 498-A of IPC; however, nothing is depicted to provisions of Section 494 or 323, 504, 506 against them. So far as applicant no.4 - Saroja is concerned, she had no reason to interact with the complainant - Smt. Vijaymala, as she is unknown to the family, she could not be branded as her relative present at the material time to attract the provisions of Section 498-A, more specifically so indicated by this Court in the matter of Sangita d/o. Natthuall Labhane Vs. Yashodhara w/o. Krishna Bhitre and Anr., reported in 2008(3) B.Cr.C. 770: [2008 ALLMR (Cri) 2228]. The allegations of second marriage or applicability of Section 494 of IPC would not be available for applicant no.4. Hence, order. 12. The Criminal Application is partly allowed. The proceedings against the applicant no.1 - Bansi s/o. Dagaduji Bhavale; applicant No.2 - Eknath s/o. Kashinath Kanule; applicant no.3 - Babasaheb s/o. Eknath Kanule; and applicant no.4 - Saroja d/o. Janardhan Dehede, are quashed to the extent of offences under Sections 323, 504, 506, 494 of Indian Penal Code. So far as applicant no.4 - Saroja is concerned, in addition to above, proceedings in pursuance of the offence under Section 498A of IPC, arising out of FIR No.I-97/2010 and also in terms of Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, are quashed and set aside. 13. The application is allowed partly in the terms indicated above. Application partly allowed.