JUDGMENT Rule. Rule is made returnable forth with. By consent of parties petition is heard for final disposal. 2. The proceeding is filed by the accused from Regular Criminal Case No.504/12 pending in the Court of JMFC Ambad, Dis.Jalna. The case is filed by police against petitioners for offences punishable u/s. 498A, 323, 504, 506 r.w. 34 of IPC and also for offences punishable u/s 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The investigation was made after giving of the report by respondent no. 3 Sk. Nafiza against petitioners. 3. It is the case of petitioners that vague allegations are made against them and even when most of the petitioners had no opportunity or reason to give any ill treatment to the respondent no.3, they are falsely roped in the case by respondent no.3. They are relatives of the husband. It is also contended that the delay caused in filing of the report shows that false case is filed. Petitioner no. 1 is the husband of respondent no.3 and petitioner nos.2 and 3 are parents of petitioner no.1. Petitioner no.4 is brother of petitioner no. 1 and petitioner no.5 is sister of petitioner no.1. Petitioner no.6 is the maternal uncle of petitioner no.1 and petitioner no.7 to 11 are the relatives of petitioner no.6. 4. Copy of charge sheet and copies of police papers are produced. The marriage between respondent no.3 and petitioner no. 1 took place in the year 2010. She has made allegations that the accused were not happy with the dowry of Rs.35000/- given at the time of the marriage and after marriage, they started asking her to bring Rs. 1.5 lakhs from her parents. It is her case that the accused persons were abusing her and on few occasions they gave beating to her. She has described a specific incident dated 21/9/12 and she has contended that on that day, they picked up quarrel on the aforesaid ground and ultimately, they drove her out of the matrimonial house. During investigation, police recorded statements of relatives of complainant and other witnesses. 5. This Court has carefully perused statements of all the witnesses. All the statements are stereo type. Statements show that most of the witnesses learnt about the alleged ill treatment from the original complainant. Vague allegations are made by respondent no.3 against all the accused. 6. During investigation, police recorded statements of relatives of complainant and other witnesses. 5. This Court has carefully perused statements of all the witnesses. All the statements are stereo type. Statements show that most of the witnesses learnt about the alleged ill treatment from the original complainant. Vague allegations are made by respondent no.3 against all the accused. 6. Petitioners have given their addresses in the petition and they show that most of the petitioners are residents of other places like Pune, Thane etc. It can be said that the petitioner no. 1, husband and his parents i.e. petitioner nos.2 and 3 are living together at Soundalgaon, Tq. Ghansangvi, Dist.Jalna. Other petitioners are not resident of the house where petitioner no. 1 was cohabiting with respondent no.3. It does not look probable that even brother and married sister of petitioner no.1 were asking respondent no.3 to bring Rs.1.5 lakhs for purchasing flat for petitioner no. 1. Their occupation is shown as labour. Learned counsel for complainant submitted that in charge sheet all the accused are shown to be residents of Soundalgaon and so, it cannot be presumed that they had no opportunity or reason to give ill treatment to the complainant. 7. There is tendency to rope in all the relatives of the husband. On most of the occasions, relatives of the husband are roped into harass them to pressurize husband. Learned counsel for petitioners relied on observations made by Apex Court in the case reported in 2012 All MR (Cri) 4059 S.C. [Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.). The Apex Court has referred the case of Ramesh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2005) SCC (Cri) 735 and the following observations are quoted: "17) Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in this matter had been pleased to hold that the bald allegations made against the sister in law by the complainant appeared to suggest the anxiety of the informant to rope in as many of the husband's relatives as possible. It was held that neither the FIR nor the charge sheet furnished the legal basis for the magistrate to take cognizance of the offences alleged against the appellants. It was held that neither the FIR nor the charge sheet furnished the legal basis for the magistrate to take cognizance of the offences alleged against the appellants. The learned Judges were pleased to hold that looking to the allegations in the FIR and the contents of the charge sheet, none of the alleged offences under Section 498 A, 406 were made against the married sister of the complainant's husband who was undisputedly not living with the family of the complainant's husband. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court were pleased to hold that the High Court ought not to have relegated the sister in law to the ordeal of trial. Accordingly, the proceedings against 'the appellants were quashed and the appeal was allowed. 18) In so far as the plea of territorial jurisdiction is concerned, it is no doubt true that the High Court was correct to the extent that the question of territorial jurisdiction could be decided by the trial Court itself. But this ground was just one of the grounds to quash the proceedings initiated against the appellants under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. wherein it was also alleged that no prima facie case was made out against the appellants for initiating the proceedings under the Dowry Prohibition Act and other provisions of the IPC. The High Court has failed to exercise its jurisdiction in so far as the consideration of the case of the appellants are concerned, who are only brother and sister of the complainant's husband and are not alleged even by the complainant to have demanded dowry from her. The High Court, therefore, ought to have considered that even if the trial Court at Allahabad had the jurisdiction to hold the trial, the question still remained as to whether the trial against the brother and sister of the husband was fit to be continued and whether that would amount to abuse of the process of the Court." 8. In the present case also, there are no specific allegations as against relatives of the husband other than the parents. In view of these circumstances, this Court holds that allowing the proceeding to continue as against petitioner nos. 4 to 11 would amount to abuse of process of law. In the result following order: 9. The petition of petitioner nos.4 to 11 is hereby allowed. In view of these circumstances, this Court holds that allowing the proceeding to continue as against petitioner nos. 4 to 11 would amount to abuse of process of law. In the result following order: 9. The petition of petitioner nos.4 to 11 is hereby allowed. The proceeding of R.C.C.No.504/12 presently pending in the Court of JMFC Ambad, Dist.Jalna, for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 of IPC and also for offence u/s 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, is quashed and set aside to the extent of petitioner nos.4 to 11. Rule is made absolute in these terms in favour of these petitioners. 10. Petition of petitioner nos.1 to 3 stands dismissed. Rule stands discharged in respect of petitioner nos. 1 to 3. Ordered accordingly