Judgment Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the respondent-original complainant. 2. By this petition which is filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking a writ, order or direction for quashing FIR No.416 of 2011 dated 9th December, 2011 registered by Amboli Police Station. 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows:- (i) The Respondent No.2 filed the said police complaint of 9th December, 2011 for offences punishable under Section 498-A, 504, 323, 506(I) and (II), 406, 114 of the Indian Penal Code r/w Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The complaint was filed against her husband, her mother-in-law and three married sister in laws and two of their husbands. It is alleged that the complainant got married on 7th February, 2011 with Shailendra Suryanath Dubey and soon after the marriage the complainant? husband and mother in law started harassing her and started demanding dowry. It is also alleged that the husband demanded one flat from her father and that her father had paid Rs. 51 lakhs as Sridhan. It is further alleged that soon after her marriage within one month, her in laws threw her out of the matrimonial house and that her husband used to assault her and her mother in law used to assist her husband when he used to assault her. It is also alleged that the gold ornaments which were given by her father as well as Sridhan were put by her mother in law in a locker in Shamrao Vitthal Co-operative Bank and she was told that she would never get these ornaments. It is then alleged that when the said incident took place her sister in laws viz. Veena Bipin Shukla and Smita Ajay Upadhayay and their husbands were also present and they were also assisting her mother in law and her husband. It is also alleged that her sister in laws used to abuse her and harass her mentally and that they were staying along with their husbands in her residence, most of time. It is also alleged that the three sister in laws and two of their husbands use to abuse her verbally. 4. It is also alleged that her sister in laws used to abuse her and harass her mentally and that they were staying along with their husbands in her residence, most of time. It is also alleged that the three sister in laws and two of their husbands use to abuse her verbally. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the complainant stayed in the matrimonial house for a period of only 30 days and even if the averments made in the complaint are accepted the allegations in the complaint do not constitute offences as against the petitioners herein who are the married sisters in laws and petitioner No.3 is the husband of the petitioner No.2. It is submitted that there is no averment in the complaint regarding entrustment of the property to the petitioners at any point of time and only allegation is that they had supported the complainant's mother-in-law along with their husbands. 5. He invited out attention to the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Preeti Gupta and Anr. vs. State of Jharkhand and Anr in Criminal Appeal No.1512 of 2010 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.4684 of 2009. He also relied upon the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Onkar Nath Mishra and Ors. vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr. reported in (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 507. It is submitted that the Supreme Court in both these cases has led down guidelines and had observed in paragraph 35 of the Judgment in Preeti Gupta (supra) that the copy of the Judgment may be sent to the Law Commission and to the Union Law Secretary, Government of India, so that it would be placed before the Hon'ble Minister for Law and Justice, to take appropriate steps in the larger interest of the society. In the said Judgment, it was observed that the members of the Bar have enormous social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fiber of family life is not ruined or demolished and that they must ensure exaggerated versions of small incidents should not be reflected in the criminal complaints, since the majority of the complaints are filed either on their advice or with their concurrence. It was also observed from the offence that the tendency of roping in all the members of the husbands family had increased and that this was done to harass and humiliate the husbands relatives. 6. The Apex Court in the case of Onkar Nath Mishra (supra) also has made similar observations and it was observed that the allegation against the in laws was obviously act after thought. 7. The Delhi High Court in the case of Savitri Devi, Petitioner vs. Ramesh Chand and Ors.-Respondent (CRL. R 462/2002 dated 19.05.2003) had laid down certain guidelines and had directed the registry of the Delhi High Court to sent the copy of the order to the Law Secretary, Union of India. 8. In paragraph No.31 of the said Order, the Delhi High Court has observed as under:- "There is growing tendency to come out with inflated and exaggerated allegations roping in each and every relation of the husband and if one of them happens to be of higher status or of vulnerable standing, he or she becomes an easy prey for better bargaining and blackmailing." 9. In view of these Judgments, the Government of India has issued a notification/circular dated 20th October, 2009 and Law and Judiciary Department have also issued a circular/letter dated 27th October, 2009 pointing out the observations made by the Apex Court and the Delhi High Court in various Judgments and the need to be careful in registering complaints under Section 498-A against the distant relatives of the husband. The State of Maharashtra has also issued a circular dated 29th May, 2010, which is issued to the Secretary, Social Welfare, Women and Child Department (Mumbai), the Director General, Maharashtra State, Mumbai, the Special Director General of Police, All Police Commissioners and all Senior Police Inspectors, Chairman, Women and Child Commission, Pune in which the precautions which are to be taken before registering offences under Section 498-A and avoiding misuse of the said provision are given. 10. Taking into consideration the facts in the present case and the Judgments on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, in our view, prima-facie case is made out for granting Rule and interim relief. 11. 10. Taking into consideration the facts in the present case and the Judgments on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, in our view, prima-facie case is made out for granting Rule and interim relief. 11. Since prima-facie it does appear that even if the averments in the complaint are accepted at the face value, no offence is made out against the two married sister in laws and the husband of the petitioner No.2. Hence Rule. Respondents waives service. Rule is made returnable after eight weeks. In the meantime interim relief is granted in terms of prayer clauses (e) and (f) to qua the petitioners only. However, it is clarified that the said interim order is to qua the petitioners only. The Respondent Nos.3,4, 5 and 6 may therefore if so advised, may file a separate petition. 12. During the course of the arguments, Shri Bagaria, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has also submitted that an application for anticipatory bail was filed by all the accused and it was pending before the Sessions Judge. Certain observations were made by the learned PP appearing on behalf of the Sate regarding the legality and propriety of the order passed by this Court and it was also argued as to how such orders could have been passed. We do not wish to make an issue about the alleged submissions made by the learned PP appearing in the Sessions Court. 13. It is necessary to give a brief background in the present case which is pending before us. Initially, when the matter came for hearing before this Court, the Division Bench of this Court, (Coram : A.M. Khanwilkar and R.G. Ketkar, JJ.) was pleased to state that this was matter where attempt should be made to resolve the entire dispute and therefore the matter was sent for mediation and since the matter was sent for mediation the court observed that during that time no coercive steps against the accused be taken. Probably, it was done to ensure that the relations which are already spoiled as result of the complaint should not be further strained. Thereafter, we were informed on 5th March, 2012 that the attempt for mediation failed therefore the matter can be heard on merits. The matter was therefore directed to be placed on the admission board on 25th March, 2012. Thereafter, we were informed on 5th March, 2012 that the attempt for mediation failed therefore the matter can be heard on merits. The matter was therefore directed to be placed on the admission board on 25th March, 2012. Since the interim order was passed and the matter was now to be decided on merits, the interim order was directed to continue till the next date i.e. 25th March, 2012. The matter then did not appear on 25th March, 2012 but was called out on 2nd April, 2012. Parties were directed to complete their pleadings and it was observed that the petition would be finally decided on that day. However, since the interim order was granted, the direction was given that coercive steps should not be taken against the petitioners. 14. Since the application for anticipatory bail was pending in the Sessions Court and when the matter was called out on 10th April, 2012, it is submitted that the learned PP had questioned the legality and propriety of the order passed by this Court. We do not wish to make an issue of this but off late on several occasions we have been told by the responsible counsel who appear in this court that scant regard or disrespect is shown to the orders passed by the High Court in the City Civil Court and the orders are passed without taking into consideration the Judgments which are passed by this Court. We hope and trust that these submissions made are in correct and we are quite sure that the members of the subordinate judiciary shall adhere to the judicial discipline and take into consideration the Judgments of the higher courts which are cited before them. 15. The learned PP at Sessions Court also is directed to ensure that such type of submissions are not made in the Subordinate Court, challenging the legality and propriety of the orders passed by this Court. 16. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent nos.3 to 6 submitted that they would also like to challenge the application seeking quashing of interim order, quashing of the FIR and interim protection is therefore extended by three weeks. 17. 16. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent nos.3 to 6 submitted that they would also like to challenge the application seeking quashing of interim order, quashing of the FIR and interim protection is therefore extended by three weeks. 17. The Sessions Court is directed to decide the application for anticipatory bail on merits and according to the law and it is also reiterated that there were no directions by this Court to the Sessions Court, not to hear the application for anticipatory bail. 18. Parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order. Certified copy is expedited.