JUDGMENT V.K.JADHAV,J. - Heard finally with consent of the parties at the admission stage. 2. The learned counsel for the applicants, on instructions, seeks leave to withdraw the application to the extent of applicant No.1 - Jyoti Rajendra Thombare. Leave granted. Application of applicant No.1 - Jyoti is disposed of as withdrawn. 3. This application pertains to quashing of FIR No.5 of 2020 dated 04-01-2020 for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 324, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Furthermore, during the pendency of this application, the charge-sheet has been submitted and the amendment is carried out under the order of this Court in the prayer clause for quashing of the proceedings bearing R.C.C. No.1392 of 2020 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Aurangabad, in connection with the aforesaid crime. 4. The learned counsel for the applicants submits that though the names of applicant Nos.2 and 3 are mentioned in the FIR, however, the allegations have been made mainly against the co- accused husband and sister in law - Jyoti Rajendra Thombare. Applicant No.2 - Rajendra Tatyarao Thombare is husband of applicant No.1 - Jyoti (sister in law), whereas applicant No.3 - Surekha Bhaskar Jivrag is another married sister in law. The learned counsel for the applicants submits that general allegations have been made against applicant Nos.2 and 3 without quoting any specific incident as such. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2-informant submits that the names of applicant Nos.2 and 3 are mentioned in the FIR with specific role attributed to each of them. The learned counsel submits that applicant No.3-Surekha resides in Aurangabad itself and she used to visit the matrimonial house of respondent No.2. There are allegations that all the accused persons have harassed respondent No.2-informant on account of non-fulfilment of unlawful demand of cash amount for purchasing a shop. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that there is no substance in this application and application is liable to be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned APP for the respondent No.1-State. We have carefully gone through the contents of the FIR. We have also carefully gone through the charge-sheet. It appears that the allegations have been made mainly against co-accused husband and applicant No.1 - Jyoti (sister in law), whose application seeking quashing of FIR is withdrawn today. 6. We have heard learned APP for the respondent No.1-State. We have carefully gone through the contents of the FIR. We have also carefully gone through the charge-sheet. It appears that the allegations have been made mainly against co-accused husband and applicant No.1 - Jyoti (sister in law), whose application seeking quashing of FIR is withdrawn today. Though the names of applicant Nos.2 and 3 are mentioned in the FIR and they have been impleaded as accused and charge-sheet has been submitted against them, however, there are general allegations against them without quoting any specifc incident. 7. In the case of Geeta Mehrotra and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors., reported in AIR 2013 SC 181 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court by referring the observations made in the case of Ramesh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2005) SCC (Cri.) 735 to 738, in paragraph No.17 has made the following observations: "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. 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 Sections 498A, 406 and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act 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." 8. In paragraph No.20, by referring the observations made in the case of G.V.Rao Vs. L.H.V.Prasad and Ors. reported in (2000) 3 SCC 693 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has made the following observations: "20. It would be relevant at this stage to take note of an apt observation of this Court recorded in the matter of G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad and Ors. L.H.V.Prasad and Ors. reported in (2000) 3 SCC 693 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has made the following observations: "20. It would be relevant at this stage to take note of an apt observation of this Court recorded in the matter of G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad and Ors. reported in : (2000) 3 SCC 693 wherein also in a matrimonial dispute, this Court had held that the High Court should have quashed the complaint arising out of a matrimonial dispute wherein all family members had been roped into the matrimonial litigation which was quashed and set aside. Their Lordships observed therein with which we entirely agree that: "there has been an outburst of matrimonial dispute in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate the disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their "young" days in chasing their cases in different courts." The view taken by the judges in this matter was that the courts would not encourage such disputes." 9. In paragraph No.27 of the Judgment, while concluding the issue, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has made the following observations: "27. We, therefore, deem it just and legally appropriate to quash the proceedings initiated against the appellants Geeta Mehrotra and Ramji Mehrotra as the FIR does not disclose any material which could be held to be constituting any offence against these two appellants. We, therefore, deem it just and legally appropriate to quash the proceedings initiated against the appellants Geeta Mehrotra and Ramji Mehrotra as the FIR does not disclose any material which could be held to be constituting any offence against these two appellants. Merely by making a general allegation that they were also involved in physical and mental torture of the complainant-respondent No.2 without mentioning even a single incident against them as also the fact as to how they could be motivated to demand dowry when they are only related as brother and sister of the complainant's husband, we are pleased to quash and set aside the criminal proceedings in so far as these appellants are concerned and consequently the order passed by the High Court shall stand overruled. The appeal accordingly is allowed" 10. In the case of Preeti Gupta and Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand and Anr. reported in AIR 2010 SC 3363 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after referring various cases on this point, in paragraph No.33 of the Judgment, has made the following observations: "33. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment of husband's close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complaint are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection. Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony and bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter of common knowledge that in cases fled by the complainant if the husband or the husband's relations had to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful." 11. It is also a matter of common knowledge that in cases fled by the complainant if the husband or the husband's relations had to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful." 11. In the instant case, the ratio laid down in the aforesaid cases squarely applies. There are no allegations against applicant No.2 - Rajendra. So far as applicant No.3 - Surekha, who is sister in law, is concerned, her name is only referred in the FIR without making any specific allegation. Thus, in view of above, we are inclined to allow this application to the extent of applicant Nos.2 and 3. Hence, the following order: ORDER I) Criminal Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause-'A-1' to the extent of the applicant Nos.2 and 3. II) The High Court Legal Services Authority Sub- Committee, Aurangabad shall pay the fees of the appointed counsel as per the Rules. III) Criminal Application is accordingly disposed of.