JUDGMENT : 1. Present application has been filed by original accused persons for quashing the private complaint Regular Criminal Case No. 131 of 2017, and the order of issuance of process under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, against them by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Osmanabad on 27-03-2017. 2. The facts leading to this application are that, respondent No.2 got married to applicant No.1 on 10-05-2015 at Pune. Applicants No.2 and 3 are the parents of applicants No.1, 4 and 5. Applicant No.6 is the husband of applicant No.5, and their marriage was solemnized on 18-12-2012. 3. According to the applicants, respondent No.2 came to matrimonial home after marriage and started cohabiting with applicant No.1. Applicants No.2, 3 and 4 and grandmother of applicant No.1 were residing jointly with them. Thereafter, respondent No.2 went to her parental house on the third day of the marriage. She was brought back by applicants No.2 to 4 on 17-05- 2015. A small party was organized to welcome her. In the said party applicant No.1 gifted a mobile handset to respondent No.2. Applicant No.2 had also gifted her a Mangalsutra in gold weighing 12.50 grams. After the party was over, respondent No.2 quarreled with applicant No.1 saying that, she did not like hosting of party and he has spoiled her mood. It was also stated by her that, her marriage with him was forcible/ against her will and she had a love affair with her friend. In categorical terms she told that, she will not be able to cohabit with him as wife and he should not touch her physically till she desires it from her heart. She also told that, he should keep these things secret from parents and relatives. Even after hearing this, the applicant No.1 tolerated and cooperated her. But thereafter, respondent No.2 started saying that she is not in a habit of cooking. Applicant No.3 used to cook meals for all of them. 4. It is contended by the applicants that, respondent No.2 was not talking and mixing with the members of the family. She used to have regular quarrels with her husband and in-laws. In June 2015 when applicant No.1 got the statement of the bill of mobile. Respondent No.2 told that still she has love affair with her boy friend Sachin who is serving in Pune. She used to have regular quarrels with her husband and in-laws. In June 2015 when applicant No.1 got the statement of the bill of mobile. Respondent No.2 told that still she has love affair with her boy friend Sachin who is serving in Pune. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 joined courses of C.C.N.A. and C.C.N.P. for which the fees were paid by applicant No.1. Thereafter applicant No.1 was hospitalized between 03-10-2015 to 10-10-2015 on the illness of kidney stone. But during that period also respondent No.2 insisted for going to the picnic along with her colleagues. Even at the time of Diwali, the behaviour of respondent No.2 was not proper. When applicants No.2 and 3 had gone out of station, respondent No.2 had not taken care of the grandmother of applicant No.1 who was then aged 100 years. Even at the time of first marriage anniversary which they wanted to celebrate at Mahabaleshwar, respondent No.2 quarreled with the husband. 5. It is stated that, respondent No.2 on her own left the matrimonial home in September, 2016. The incident was reported by applicant No.1 to the police station on 13-09-2016 wherein it was informed that, respondent No.2 has taken her clothes, ornaments and valuable articles. She had also taken away applicant No.1's gold chain, two gold rings and had asked applicant No.1 to give her divorce. A legal notice was issued by applicant No.1 on 21-09-2016 to her, which she responded on 24-11-2016. Thereafter he has filed P. A. No. 1332 of 2016, before Family Court at Pune for dissolution of marriage. However, on 31-12-2016 a compromise was arrived at between the parties before 'Mahila Suraksha Vishesh Kaksh', Osmanabad. It was decided that, respondent No.2 would go along with her husband on 28-01-2017. The said compromise deed was signed by the parties. However, on 20-01-2017 itself respondent No.2 filed a private complaint under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, bearing M.A. No. 59 of 2017, and later on registered as Regular Criminal Case No. 131 of 2017. All the family members have been made as accused. Consequently the respondent No.2 has also filed application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 on 03-02-2017. 6. It is contended by the applicants that, applicants No.5, 6 and 7 are residing separately from applicants No.1 to 4. All the family members have been made as accused. Consequently the respondent No.2 has also filed application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 on 03-02-2017. 6. It is contended by the applicants that, applicants No.5, 6 and 7 are residing separately from applicants No.1 to 4. Applicants No.5, 6 and 7 are not the family members of applicants No.1 to 4, however they have been implicated in order to harass the applicants No.1 to 4. She is now making unlawful demands from applicant No.1. Therefore, the applicants have prayed for quashing the entire proceedings Regular Criminal Case No. 131 of 2017. 7. Affidavit-in-reply has been filed by respondent No.2, in which she has contended that, she was harassed by all the applicants on different occasions physically and mentally. They were making unlawful demand. After the compromise deed was arrived at on 31-12-2016, when all the parties came out, thereafter applicant No.1 had assaulted her and told that, he will not cohabit with her. Accused No.2 abused her in filthy language and all of them threatened that, if they are again called at Osmanabad, the respondent No.2 and her family members would be killed. She has again reiterated the contents of her complaint. Further it is stated by her that, since the order of issuance of process is challenged, an application under Section 482 of Code of criminal Procedure is not maintainable. That order can be challenged under Section 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure before Sessions Court. Reliance has been placed on the decision in V.K. Jain and others Vs. Pratap V. Padode and another, reported in 2005 (3) MhLJ 778 wherein it has been held that,- “The power of High Court under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure should not be resorted to if there is specific provision in the Code for the redress of the grievance of the aggrieved party. The applicants have an efficacious remedy of preferring revision in respect of the order of the Magistrate issuing process. Thus, as there is a specific provision in the Code for redressal of the grievance of the applicants, it would be appropriate that the applicants prefer a revision against the order of the Magistrate issuing process, before the concerned Sessions Court.” 8. Heard Mr. S.H. Jagiasi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of applicants, Mr. A.A. Jagatkar, learned Addl. Thus, as there is a specific provision in the Code for redressal of the grievance of the applicants, it would be appropriate that the applicants prefer a revision against the order of the Magistrate issuing process, before the concerned Sessions Court.” 8. Heard Mr. S.H. Jagiasi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of applicants, Mr. A.A. Jagatkar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1, and Mr. B.S. Choure, learned advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No.2. Perused the documents. 9. It has been submitted on behalf of the applicants that, the respondent No.2 has intentionally filed the complaint before Osmanabad Court, when in fact alleged incident of ill-treatment had taken place in Pune. He has drawn my attention to the notice that was issued by applicant No.1 to respondent on 21-09-2016 and submitted that, the applicant No.1 has taken the first step by giving all the details. Respondent No.2 responded to the said notice belatedly i.e. on 24-11-2016. Thereafter applicant No.1 had field the petition for nullity of marriage on 29-11-2016. Even if we considered the compromise deed executed on 31-12-2016, it contains the story put forward by each of the party. Still applicant No.1 had stated that, the respondent No.2 should improve her behaviour and do all the duties of a wife. He also stated that, he will not harass her and is ready to cohabit with her. It was specifically mentioned that, the applicant i.e. present respondent No.2 had agreed to go along with the husband on 28-01-2017. Respondent No.2 did not wait till that day but on 20-01-2017 itself she has filed the private complaint with some concocted story that when the parties came out of the mediation centre, she was harassed by the accused persons. 10. It has been further argued on behalf of applicants that after the complaint was filed, verification of the complainant has been taken. Only omnibus statement has been made by her that, all the accused persons were saying that applicant No.1 will remarry and she would be evicted from the house. Only on the basis of such statements in her verification, the learned Magistrate ought not to have issued process against all the accused persons. The learned Magistrate failed to consider that accused No.5 to 7 are not residing with accused No.1 to 4. 11. He also submitted that in Dhariwal Tobacco Products Limited and Others Vs. Only on the basis of such statements in her verification, the learned Magistrate ought not to have issued process against all the accused persons. The learned Magistrate failed to consider that accused No.5 to 7 are not residing with accused No.1 to 4. 11. He also submitted that in Dhariwal Tobacco Products Limited and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, reported in (2009) 2 SCC 370 , Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that,- “Merely because alternate remedy in the form of filing revision under Section 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure is available that does not mean that petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. should be dismissed on that ground. Inherent power of High Court is not conferred by statute but has merely been saved thereunder.” Almost similar view is taken in Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, Faridkot Versus Shree Durga Ji Traders and Others, reported in (2011) 14 SCC 615 . He also relied on the decision of this Court in Dr. Saurabh s/o Shivhar Velukar Versus The State of Maharashtra, in Criminal Writ Petition No. 443 of 2017, decided on 11-04-2018, wherein it has been held that,- “When no allegations of any ill-treatment at the place where the parents of the complainant reside have been made and the entire allegation pertaining to matrimonial home, then the said Court where the parents of the complainant are residing has no jurisdiction.” He, therefore, prayed that if at all this Court comes to the conclusion that the entire complaint cannot be quashed then the said complaint be transferred to appropriate Court at Pune. 12. The learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.2 again reiterated that, the application is not maintainable under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure and he again relied on V.K. Jain and others case (Supra). He also relied on the decision in Fiona Shrikhande Versus State of Maharashtra and Another, reported in (2013) 14 SCC 44 , wherein it has been observed that,- “While issuing process, the Magistrate has to arrive at prima facie satisfaction as to whether there are grounds for proceeding, by reading complaint as a whole, without adverting to defence of accused, if any, and without going into merits of the case. Magistrate has to examine prima facie truth and inherent probabilities apparent on allegations made in complaint so as to be satisfied that prima facie ingredients of alleged offence made out from complaint for issuance of process. Once Magistrate by exercising his discretion forms opinion regarding existence of ground for proceeding, higher court should not substitute its own discretion for that of Magistrate.” He further relied on the decision in Leena Vivek Masal Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, reported in 2018 AllMR(Cri) 904 (S.C.), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court refused to interfere with the order of issuance of process by exercising its effect under Article 136 of Constitution of India. 13. The learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.2 submitted that, on the basis of allegations in the complaint and verification, the learned Magistrate had come to the conclusion that prima facie case has been made out against all the accused persons, and the learned Magistrate has also considered the point of jurisdiction, therefore it cannot be agitated here. 14. It can be seen that, two grounds have been raised by the applicants in order to challenge the proceedings as well as the order of issuance of process. One is regarding the contents of the complaint and another is regarding jurisdiction. I would like to take the point of jurisdiction first for discussion. The point of jurisdiction is required to be considered on the basis of the prima facie contents of the complaint. Contents of the compliant would show that almost all the alleged incidents of ill-treatment had taken place at Pune. According to the complainant i.e. respondent No.2, some incident had taken place out side the office of Mahila Vishesh Suraksha Kaksha, Osmanabad on 31-12-2016, and therefore, she has taken benefit of Section 178 (b) and (d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. At this stage we need not read any evidence between the lines though taking into consideration the fact that the complainant had not informed the members of the committee in whose presence the compromise had taken place that some incident had taken place on 31-12-2016. This fact was not disclosed by her on that day itself also as well as on 28-01-2017. The point of jurisdiction can be agitated at the appropriate stage by the accused. Only on the basis of jurisdiction entire proceeding cannot be quashed and set aside. This fact was not disclosed by her on that day itself also as well as on 28-01-2017. The point of jurisdiction can be agitated at the appropriate stage by the accused. Only on the basis of jurisdiction entire proceeding cannot be quashed and set aside. The remedy in that case would be to transfer the case to the Court having appropriate jurisdiction. 15. It appears that, the husband had taken first step, he had issued legal notice on 21-09-2016 giving his own story and then it has been replied by the wife on 24-11-2016 with her own story. Thereafter, the husband has filed petition for divorce on 29-11-2016. Only on this basis at the prima facie stage we cannot arrived at the conclusion that whatever the story has been given by the complainant – wife, is false. It would be a matter of evidence that can be brought by the husband on record. The only point that is required to be considered is, whether in the complaint as well as the verification any ground was made out for taking action against all the accused or some of the accused. 16. As regards allegations of accused No.1 to 4, who are admittedly residing in one house is concerned, such allegations are made, and therefore, no fault can be found with the order of issuance of process against them. Admittedly accused No.5 who is the sister of accused No.1 got married to accused No.6 much prior to the marriage between complainant and accused No.1. Perusal of the complaint as regards accused No.5, 6 and 7, it is to be noted that they used to say that she should bring certain amount from her father in order to purchase flat or as fee for her course, thereafter whatever is alleged to be stated by them is stated to be in chorus. Particular role is not attributed to them. They are admittedly residing at some different place. If we consider the verification, the complainant has reduced the allegations against those accused persons i.e. accused No.5 to 7. Only statement that is made in verification against them is, “XXX” This is the omnibus statement made against them, and therefore, taking into consideration this aspect, the learned Magistrate, ought not to have issued process against accused No.5 to 7. If we consider the verification, the complainant has reduced the allegations against those accused persons i.e. accused No.5 to 7. Only statement that is made in verification against them is, “XXX” This is the omnibus statement made against them, and therefore, taking into consideration this aspect, the learned Magistrate, ought not to have issued process against accused No.5 to 7. It would be abuse of process of law to ask accused No.5 to 7 to face the trial because in the complaint she has not attributed specific role to them. In Geeta Mehrotra and Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, reported in 2012 (10) SC 74, Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that,- “When there is casual reference to family members of the husband in the FIR as co-accused then in the event of absence of any specific allegation and prima facie case against them, the proceedings are required to be quashed against such persons.” In this case itself, it has also been held that the point of jurisdiction of the Court should be left to be decided by the trial Court i.e. Court at first instance. Order of issuance of process is a very serious business. It requires judicious application of mind. Only on the basis of some stray statements, persons can not be asked to face the trial. Learned Magistrate ought to have considered that accused No. 5 to 7 are residing at a different place and whatever is alleged against them is in chorus. Learned Magistrate ought to have considered the tendancy to implicate all the family members of husband in such type of cases, hence, Courts should be slow in accepting the allegations against such relatives even at the prima facie stage. 17. As regards maintainability of the proceeding is concerned, the ratio laid down in Fiona Shrikhande's case (Supra) will not be helpful to the respondent No.2, because in this case the main prayer of all the applicants is to quash the proceedings against them. Further in Leena Masal's case, Hon'ble Supreme Court had refused to exercise its inherent powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of India for which there are different parameters. Further in Leena Masal's case, Hon'ble Supreme Court had refused to exercise its inherent powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of India for which there are different parameters. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dhariwal Tobacco Products Limited, has held that, merely because alternative remedy of filing revision under Section 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure is available, it cannot be a ground to dismiss the application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, respondent No. 2 can not rely on V.K. Jain's case. 18. Therefore, taking into consideration the above said reasons, case has been made out to exercise the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the said proceedings as against accused No. 5 to 7 only. Hence, following order. ORDER 1. The application is hereby partly allowed. 2. The proceedings in Regular Criminal Case No. 131 of 2017 and the impugned order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, (3rd Court) Osmanabad, on 27-03-2017 against accused No. 5 to 7, of issuance of process for the offences punishable under Section 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, is hereby quashed and set aside. 3. It is clarified that, the proceedings will proceed as against accused No.1 to 4. They are at liberty to raise the point of jurisdiction before the concerned Court.