JUDGMENT 1. Heard. 2. By this application under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicants are challenging the registration of the First Information Report (FIR) No.210 of 2019 dtd. 15/6/2019 registered with non-applicant no.1-Police Station for the offence under Sec. 120B, 313, 377, 498A, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter "IPC", for short). 3. The FIR came to be registered against the applicants with the accusations that the marriage between the accused no.1 (husband) and the complainant was performed in the year 2012. In the year 2015, the accused no.1 was promoted in service. Accused no.1 started demanding a four-wheeler and used to assault the complainant. 3.1 In 2017, during summer vacation, accused nos.2 to 8 came to reside along with accused no.1 and the complainant at their place in Mumbai. It is alleged that the accused nos.2 to 8 used to harass the complainant by giving threats that they would kill the complainant if she refused to leave the accused. The complainant, therefore, called her father, who took her to a matrimonial home. Thereafter, when she again started residing with accused no. 1, she became pregnant. At that time, the accused nos.2 to 9 came to her house in Mumbai and convinced the accused no.1 to abort the foetus of the complainant. When she refused to abort, the accused no.1 assaulted her and threatened that he would kill her along with the unborn child. The accused no.1, under pressure from the remaining accused, forced her to abort at Shreyas Hospital, Panvel, without her consent. 3.2 The accused no.1 thereafter demanded a dowry of the amount of Rs.5,00,000.00 to purchase a four-wheeler vehicle. The accused no.8, resides in Mumbai and used to visit the complainant's house and used to assault her. The accused no.7 also visited her home and was abetting the accused no.1 to harass the complainant. 3.3 During the summer vacation of 2018, the accused nos.2 to 6, came to reside in her house for 15 days. During that period, they assaulted the complainant along with her husband. They also told the accused no.1 not to reside with the complainant. The accused nos.5 and 6 used to abet accused no.1 to harass the complainant so that she, on her own, would leave the accused no.1. During that period, they assaulted the complainant along with her husband. They also told the accused no.1 not to reside with the complainant. The accused nos.5 and 6 used to abet accused no.1 to harass the complainant so that she, on her own, would leave the accused no.1. The accused no.4 told accused no.1 to act as per her advice so that the complainant would leave him. 3.4 In Diwali vacation of 2018, when the accused no.1 and the complainant were on their way to her matrimonial home, the accused no.9 told the accused no.1 to keep the complainant with her father and he should marry some other woman. He also convinced the accused no.1 that he would take care of such a situation if he married another woman. 3.5 It is alleged that the accused no.1 performed unnatural sex with the complainant. 3.6 In January 2019, when the complainant's father met with an accident, the complainant visited his place at Karanja. At that time, the accused nos.2 to 4 came to her matrimonial house and told her mother and father that they had no intention to allow her daughter to reside with the accused no.1. 3.7 On 5/6/2019, at around 11:00 a.m., the accused no.1 assaulted complainant for a frivolous reason in front of her sister. The complainant, therefore, filed an NC report against her husband for the offence under Ss. 323, 504 and 506 of the IPC. In pursuance of the said report, the police called the accused no.1 to the police station. 3.8 It is alleged that the accused no.1, along with all other accused, physically and mentally harassed the complainant, and therefore she was constrained to lodge FIR against the accused persons on 14/6/2019. 4. The applicants have therefore challenged the registration of FIR by filing the present application. 5. The applicant no.1 (Accused No. 3) is the husband of the applicant no.2 (Accused No. 4), who is sister-in-law of the nonapplicant no.2. The applicant no.3 (Accused No. 5) and applicant no. 4 (Accused No. 6) are sons of the applicant nos.1 and 2. Applicant no.5 (Accused No. 7) is the applicant's husband no.6 (Accused No. 8), who is the sister in law of non-applicant no.2. The applicant no.7 (Accused No. 9) is the maternal brother in law of non-applicant no.2. The applicant no.8 (Accused No. 1) is the husband of the non-applicant no.2. 6. Applicant no.5 (Accused No. 7) is the applicant's husband no.6 (Accused No. 8), who is the sister in law of non-applicant no.2. The applicant no.7 (Accused No. 9) is the maternal brother in law of non-applicant no.2. The applicant no.8 (Accused No. 1) is the husband of the non-applicant no.2. 6. This Court, on 1/7/2019, issued notices to the nonapplicants directing them not to file charge-sheet against the applicants without leave of the Court. 7. The Investigating Agency filed a reply stating that the applicants used to demand money of Rs.5,00,000.00 to purchase a four-wheeler. It is stated that this statement recorded by the Investigating Agency prima facie discloses the offence alleged against them. 8. We have heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Mr. A.B. Band, learned Advocate for the applicants, submitted that the allegations in the FIR are omnibus, which are not sufficient to constitute offences alleged against the applicants. He submitted that essential ingredients of the offences against the applicants are not made out, even if at their face value. He placed reliance upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Geeta Mehrotra and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another,2012) 10 SCC 741. Shabnam Sheikh and others Vs. State of Maharashtra, through Police Station Officer and others,2020 SCC OnLine Bom 1752: (2021) 1 DMC 58(DB). Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and others Vs. State of Bihar and others,2022 SCC OnLine SC 162. 9. Per contra, Mr. F.T. Mirza, learned Advocate for the nonapplicant no.2, submitted that this is one of the rare cases where there are specific allegations against each applicant. He submitted that the allegations against each applicant are sufficient to constitute essential ingredients of the offences alleged against applicants. He submitted that at this stage, truth or otherwise of the allegations need not be gone into as it is for the Investigating Agency to consider whether to file chargesheet or not. He submitted that in case the Investigating Agency files a charge sheet, the applicants would have the opportunity to apply for discharge. 10. Ms N.P. Mehta learned Additional Public Prosecutor supported the contentions of the Advocate for the non-applicant no.2 by submitting that the investigation is almost complete and the charge sheet is ready. 11. We have carefully considered the allegations in the FIR. 10. Ms N.P. Mehta learned Additional Public Prosecutor supported the contentions of the Advocate for the non-applicant no.2 by submitting that the investigation is almost complete and the charge sheet is ready. 11. We have carefully considered the allegations in the FIR. As stated above, in our opinion, insofar as the accused no.1- husband is concerned, there are specific allegations against him that he assaulted the non-applicant no.2 in the year 2015, during the summer vacation of 2017, Diwali vacation of 2018 and 5/6/2019 resulting in lodging of NC report against him. In addition, the accused No.1 performed unnatural sex with the complainant. 12. Insofar as the rest of the applicants are concerned, there are sufficient allegations against them that they visited the house of the complainant in the summer vacation of 2017 and threatened her that they would burn her to death. It is also alleged that the remaining accused persuaded the accused no.1 to force her to abort her child without her consent. It is alleged that the accused no.8, used to assault her regularly as she was residing in Mumbai. It is stated that accused No.7 used to visit her house and persuaded the accused no.1 to harass the nonapplicant no.2. In the summer of 2018, all accused persons assaulted her. The accused nos.5 and 6 used to abet accused no.1 to harass her so that she would desert the accused no.1. 13. The case diary produced by the Investigating Agency in the Court disclosed that the Investigating Agency had recorded statements of the complainant, father of the complainant, mother of the complainant, neighbours of the complainant, brother of the complainant, maid servant working in the house of applicants and other witnesses. The Investigating Agency has recorded the statements of all 21 witnesses. None of the witnesses has supported the case of the applicants. On the contrary, their statements prima facie lend support to the prosecution case that the accused/applicants used to harass the non-applicant no.2. 14. The Investigating Agency has recorded the statements of all 21 witnesses. None of the witnesses has supported the case of the applicants. On the contrary, their statements prima facie lend support to the prosecution case that the accused/applicants used to harass the non-applicant no.2. 14. At this stage, it would be useful to refer to Sec. 498A of the IPC, which reads as under: "498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.- Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.-For the purposes of this sec. , "cruelty means"- (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand." 15. The object of the introduction of Sec. 498A in the statute book is to prevent the torture of a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Sec. 498-A was added to punish the husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful dowry demands. 16. Having carefully considered the explanation to Sec. 498-A and, in particular, clause (b), we are of the considered opinion that the applicants have prima facie harassed the nonapplicant no.2 and coerced her to meet the unlawful demand of the accused no.1. It also prima facie establishes that on account of the failure of the complainant to pay a dowry of Rs.5,00,000.00, the applicants harassed the non-applicant no.2. 17. In our view, the allegations against each applicant are specific that the applicants caused harassment to the nonapplicant no.2 for non-payment of dowry amount. 18. Reliance placed by the learned Advocate for the applicants Geeta Mehrotra, Shabnam Sheikh and Kahkashan Kausar (supra) has no application in the facts of the case. 17. In our view, the allegations against each applicant are specific that the applicants caused harassment to the nonapplicant no.2 for non-payment of dowry amount. 18. Reliance placed by the learned Advocate for the applicants Geeta Mehrotra, Shabnam Sheikh and Kahkashan Kausar (supra) has no application in the facts of the case. In our opinion, the allegations against applicants are prima facie sufficient to constitute an offence under Sec. 498-A of the IPC. In our opinion, the hyper-technical view, as submitted by the learned Advocate for the applicants, would be counterproductive and would act against the interest of the nonapplicant no.2 and the object for which the said provision is added in the Statute book. 19. The law regarding the exercise of the powers under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to consider prayers for quashing has been settled by a series of decisions of the Supreme Court, including the leading judgment in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal,1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. and the latest decision of the Supreme Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918 .where it took a review of the earlier case law on the subject. In the case of Bhajan Lal, the Supreme Court identified and referred to certain contingencies where the court could quash FIR. The law laid down in the case of Bhajan Lal was reiterated by the Supreme Court in various decisions and is applied in many cases by the High Courts. The common thread that runs through these decisions is that while the power of the High Court under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the FIR is available, its exercise should be in exceptional circumstances. The principles in the decision of Neeharika, which are relevant to the case at hand, are as follows. The primary position is that the police have a statutory right and duty to investigate a cognisable offence. The courts would not ordinarily obstruct any investigation into the cognisable offences. The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection. The exercise of this power has to be made in the rarest of rare cases, clarified as not to be confused with the term used in the death penalty context. The courts would not ordinarily obstruct any investigation into the cognisable offences. The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection. The exercise of this power has to be made in the rarest of rare cases, clarified as not to be confused with the term used in the death penalty context. Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in the miscarriage of justice, the court should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences and scuttle the criminal proceedings at the initial stage. When a prayer is made to quash the FIR because the FIR does not disclose any cognisable offence, the court must bear in mind that an FIR is not an encyclopaedia that must disclose all the details. While considering the prayer for quashing the FIR, the court has only to examine whether the accusations in the FIR disclose the commission of a cognisable offence or not. If they are present, the court has to permit the investigating agency to investigate the allegations in the FIR. 20. In our view, accusations in the FIR prima facie disclose the commission of a cognisable offence; therefore, the prosecution needs to be given an opportunity to prove its case whether allegations against the applicants are true or false is a matter of trial. Consequently, we are satisfied that, prima facie, allegations against the applicants are sufficient to constitute the offence alleged against the applicants. Therefore, no case is made out to quash the proceedings against the applicants. Consequently, the criminal application is rejected. 21. The Rule stands discharged. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. 22. We make it clear that the observations made hereinabove are only for the purpose of disposal of the criminal application and may not influence further proceedings which must be taken to its logical conclusion in accordance with law.