JUDGMENT : S.S. Shinde, J. 1. This application is filed with the following prayer : "B) The first information report No. 0005/2017 dated 17.01.2017 registered with Ghansavangi Police Station, Ghansavangi, Dist. Jalna for the offence punishable U/S. 498A, 323, 504 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act may please be quashed and set aside in the interest of justice and to prevent abuse of process of law." 2. The brief facts leading to file the present application are as under : Applicant no.1 is the mother of Sanjog Hiwale i.e. the husband of respondent no.2. Applicant Nos. 2 to 4 are the bothers of husband of respondent no.2. The marriage of Sanjog and Aarchanabai has taken place on 25th November, 2007. They are having a son namely 'Shourya' from their wedlock. The husband of respondent no.2 doing business and also running Internet Cafe in Nutan Vasahat, Jalna and residing near to the business place since 2013. Since their marriage respondent no.2 and her husband are residing separately and the applicants used to meet them very occasionally. 3. The complainant/respondent No.2 lodged first information report No. 0005/2017 with Ghansavangi Police Station, Ghansavangi, Dist. Jalna for the offence punishable U/S. 498A, 323, 504 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act on 17th January, 2017 against the present applicants alleging that, she married to Sanjog on 25th January, 2007. After marriage she came to Jalna for cohabitation with her husband and her inlaws treated her well for three months and thereafter they started suspecting her character and used to beat and tease her. They were asking to bring Rs.2 lacs from her parents and the said fact was informed to her father. He came to the house of the applicants at Jalna and requested them not to harass his daughter. Thereafter, she resided with them for seven years. During her wedlock, she gave birth to a child namely 'Shourya'. The applicants driven her out of the house as their demand of Rs.2 Lacs was not fulfilled by her parents. Thereafter, she went with her father at Masegaon and is residing at her father's home. Respondent no.2 also made complaint with the Women's Protection Cell, where her husband came alone and therefore the settlement could not take place. The applicants driven her out of the house as their demand of Rs.2 Lacs was not fulfilled by her parents. Thereafter, she went with her father at Masegaon and is residing at her father's home. Respondent no.2 also made complaint with the Women's Protection Cell, where her husband came alone and therefore the settlement could not take place. Thereafter she got letter from Women's Protection Cell and lodged this Complaint. Hence this application. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that, the allegations in the first information report are taken at its face value and read in its entirety, the ingredients of the alleged offences have not been disclosed against the present applicants. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that, when respondent no.2 made complaint to the Women's Protection Cell, she made different allegations in said complaint, than made in the first information report. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that, applicant nos. 2 and 3 are in Government service and applicant no.4 is in service of private undertaking and now he is in Germany for work in Multinational Company. He submits that, she lodged the first information report against all the accused/applicants only with an intention to harass them. He submits that, all the applicants are residing separately since the marriage of respondent no.2. Respondent No.2 and her husband Sanjog are residing at Nutan Colony, Behind Visava School, Old Jalna and there were clashes in between them on trifle matters. Therefore, respondent no.2 had earlier lodged complaint against her husband with the Kadim Police Station, Jalna on 1st June, 2016 for the offence punishable under sections 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that, applicant No. 1 is an old aged lady and she is residing at village Nandapur, Tq. and Dist. Jalna for doing the agricultural operations and she is suffering from various ailments due to old age. He submits that, applicant no.2 also used to reside at Nandapur along with his mother i.e. applicant No.1. Now he is posted in Police Department at Jalna. Learned counsel submits that, so far as the role of applicant No.3 Manoj is concerned, the allegations made in first information report are totally false and incorrect. He submits that, applicant no.2 also used to reside at Nandapur along with his mother i.e. applicant No.1. Now he is posted in Police Department at Jalna. Learned counsel submits that, so far as the role of applicant No.3 Manoj is concerned, the allegations made in first information report are totally false and incorrect. He did inter caste marriage on 11th November, 2005, and the said couple is residing in a Government Quarter since the year 2006 to 2012. He submits that, present applicant no.4 is working with private company since last so many years at Pune and at other places since the year 2006. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that, there were quarrels between herself and her husband - Sanjog on a trifle matter. She left house of her husband, and thereafter the husband filed Marriage Application No.139 of 2016 (Sanjog v. Sau. Archana) for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1956. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants further submits that, an allegations made in the complaint are not true and correct, and the said allegations have been made by her as per advise given by her parents due to personal grudge and with the intention to harass accused. On the face of record such allegations made in the complaint is false and incorrect. Learned counsel appearing for applicants in support of his contentions that, when there are omnibus and general allegations without mentioning specific incident or date of incident, in that case, the first information report deserves to be quashed, placed reliance on the exposition of law by the Apex Court in the cases of Geeta Mehrotra and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2012) 10 SCC 741 , Binod Kumar and others v. State of Bihar and another (2014) 10 SCC 663 and the unreported judgment of this Court in the case of Radhakishan S/o Shahaji Pote and others v. The State of Maharashtra and another in Criminal Application no.4999 of 2016 dated 23rd February, 2017. Therefore, learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that, the application deserves to be allowed. 6. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the respondent/State submits that, upon careful reading of an allegations in the first information report, an alleged offences have been disclosed and those need further investigation. It is submitted that, the statement of the parents of the informant are recorded. Therefore, learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that, the application deserves to be allowed. 6. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the respondent/State submits that, upon careful reading of an allegations in the first information report, an alleged offences have been disclosed and those need further investigation. It is submitted that, the statement of the parents of the informant are recorded. A statement of one Shri Suresh Punjaram Ratnaparkhi is also recorded, who stated that, the accused persons came to the house of parents of respondent no.2 at Masegaon and harassed and illtreated her and even assaulted the father of respondent no.2. Therefore, he submits that, the application may be rejected. 7. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2, relying upon the affidavit in reply, submits that, all the accused are jointly residing with Ramnagar Police Colony, Jalna. He submits that, the allegations in the first information report will have to be read as it is. He submits that, an alleged offences have been clearly disclosed. Due to illtreatment and harassment by the applicants, respondent no.2 was forced and compelled to leave the matrimonial home. Still she is residing with her parents. Even the applicants went to the place of parents of respondent no.2 and harassed her and even assaulted the father of respondent no.2. He submits that, at the relevant time, when respondent no.2 was residing in the matrimonial home, all the accused persons were residing with the matrimonial home and used to illtreat and harass respondent no.2. Therefore, an ingredients of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code are clearly attracted. He submits that, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Taramani Parakh v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, (2015) 11 SCC 260 has taken a view that, the question whether the appellants have in fact harassed and treated with cruelty is a matter of trial, but at the stage of investigation, it cannot be said that, no case is made out. Quashing of proceedings before the trial is not permissible. Therefore, he submits that, the application may be rejected. 8. We have given anxious consideration to the submissions of learned counsel appearing for the parties. With their able assistance, we have carefully perused the grounds taken in the application, annexures thereto, reply filed by respondent no.2 and also the original record made available for perusal. Therefore, he submits that, the application may be rejected. 8. We have given anxious consideration to the submissions of learned counsel appearing for the parties. With their able assistance, we have carefully perused the grounds taken in the application, annexures thereto, reply filed by respondent no.2 and also the original record made available for perusal. Upon careful perusal of the allegations in the first information report, there are allegations against all the applicants that, they used to ask respondent no.2 to bring Rs. 2 Lacs from her parents and used to illtreat and harass her. It is also stated that, they used to abuse and beat her. She used to tell about the said illtreatment and harassment to her father. Father of respondent no.2 on couple of occasions visited the matrimonial home and tried to convince accused not to give illtreatment and harassment to her daughter, however, the said harassment and illtreatment was continued by the accused. It would be apt to reproduce herein below the relevant portion of the first information report, which would disclose an ingredients of section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. "uarj eyk ek>s lkljdMhy yksd ij ?ks.;klkBh ;k dkj.kko:.k nksu yk[k ;i;s ekxqu eyk ek>soj la'k; ?kscqu ekjgku d:u f'kohxky d:u ykFkcqD;kus ekjgku d:u eyk mik'kh iksVh Bsoqu =kl nsoqu ek>k Nd d:u eyk lky o"kkZ uarj ?kjkckgsj gkdywu fnys vkgs o ek>s eqykyk ek>s eqykyk ek>s lkscr fnys ukgh uarj eh ek>s oMhykl Qksuoj lkaxqu cksykoqu ?ksrys o oMhy tkyuk ;sFks vkys vkgs eh ek>s oMhyk toy jkgr vls rsOgk ek>s lkljdMhy yksd ek>s ekgsjh eklsxko ;sFks ;soqu vkeph rMtksM djr vlrk eyk o ek>s ofMykl f'kohxky d:u pkiVkcqD;kus ekjgku dsyh o fu?kwu xsys ekbU;k ftohrkl Fksdk vlY;kus eh tkyuk ;sFks tkoq 'kdr ukghA" 9. We have carefully perused the statements of the witnesses recorded during the course of investigation. There is statement of one independent witness namely Suresh Punjaram Ratnaparkhi. In his statement he stated that, all the accused persons came to the house of the parents of respondent no.2 at Masegaon and asked her that, she should bring Rs. 2 Lacs from her parents otherwise they will not allow her to stay in the matrimonial home. There is statement of one independent witness namely Suresh Punjaram Ratnaparkhi. In his statement he stated that, all the accused persons came to the house of the parents of respondent no.2 at Masegaon and asked her that, she should bring Rs. 2 Lacs from her parents otherwise they will not allow her to stay in the matrimonial home. The contention of learned counsel appearing for the applicants that, the applicants are residing separately is a matter for investigation and would lead to adjudication of the disputed questions of facts, in as much as, respondent no.2 in her affidavit in reply has specifically stated that, all the applicants are/were residing at the relevant time in the matrimonial home. The Supreme Court in the case of Taramani Parakh (supra) held that, the question whether the appellants have in fact harassed and treated with cruelty is a matter of trial, but at the stage of investigation, it cannot be said that, no case is made out. Quashing of proceedings before the trial is not permissible. Yet in another case, the Supreme Court in the case of Bhaskar Lal Sharma and another v. Monica and others (2014) 3 S.C.C. 383 , in Para 11 and 12 held that: "11. The facts, as alleged, therefore will have to be proved which can only be done in the course of a regular trial. It is wholly unnecessary for us to embark upon a discourse as regards the scope and ambit of the Court's power to quash a criminal proceeding. The appreciation, even in a summary manner, of the averments made in a complaint petition or FIR would not be permissible at the stage of quashing and the facts stated will have to be accepted as they appear on the very face of it. This is the core test that has to be applied before summoning the accused. Once the aforesaid stage is overcome, the facts alleged have to be proved by the complainant/prosecution on the basis of legal evidence in order to establish the penal liability of the person charged with the offence. 12. This is the core test that has to be applied before summoning the accused. Once the aforesaid stage is overcome, the facts alleged have to be proved by the complainant/prosecution on the basis of legal evidence in order to establish the penal liability of the person charged with the offence. 12. Insofar as the offence under Section 406 of the Penal Code is concerned, it is clear from the averments made in Paras 16, 18, 24 and 29 of the complaint petition that it has been alleged that the appellants were entrusted or had exercised dominion over the property belonging to the respondent and further that the appellants had unlawfully retained the same. The statements made in Para 6 of the complaint also alleges retention of cash and other gifts received by the respondent complainant at the time of her marriage to the Appellant 2 - accused. In the face of the said averments made in the complaint petition, it cannot be said that the complaint filed by the respondent is shorn of the necessary allegations to prima facie sustain the case of commission of the offence under Section 406 by the appellants." 10. In the light of discussion in forgoing paragraphs, the prayer of the applicants for quashing first information report cannot be entertained. Hence the application for quashing first information report stands rejected. An observations made herein above are prima facie in nature and confined to the adjudication of the present application only. This order will not preclude the applicants from availing of an appropriate remedy in the event of filing charge sheet by the Investigating Officer.