The central legal point established in the judgment is the need to curb the dangerous trend of over implication of family members in matrimonial disputes and the principles relating to the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. to quash complaints and criminal proceedings.

1. Heard learned counsels for the petitioners and the opposite parties.

2. The present application has been filed for quashing the order dated 6.10.2012 passed by the learned S.D.J.M. Danapur, Patna, in Complaint Case No. 680 (C) of 2012 whereby the processes were directed to be issued alter cognizance being taken for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 494, 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. The petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 are the brother, married sister, parents and the paternal aunt of the husband of the complainant while petitioner No. 6 is alleged to be the second wife of husband of the complainant and petitioner No. 7 is the husband of the complainant.

4. The accusations are of torture for non-fulfillment of dowry demand and performing second marriage.

5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that accusation is omnibus and general against the entire in-laws of the complainant and petitioner No. 7 is still ready to keep the complainant as wife with full dignity and honour. Though performance of second marriage between petitioner No. 7 Amarjit Kumar @ Anil Kumar Choudhary husband of the complainant and petitioner No. 6 Priya Kumari has also been admitted by learned counsel for the petitioners.

6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the complainant that accusation of demand of dowry is also levelled against parents of petitioner No. 7 and other accused persons but at the same time it is admitted that it is not specific.

7. On hearing the rival submissions of the learned counsels for the parties, it appears that the first marriage of petitioner No. 7 with the complainant and the second marriage with the petitioner No. 6 i.e. Priya Kumari are admitted facts.

8. On going through the complaint, it appears that so far as the accusations against the petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 are concerned, it is not specific and it has only been alleged against them that they demanded Rs. 1 Lakh from the parents of the complainant and the petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 did not return back the belongings of the complainant.

8(A) Here it would be relevant to first understand and examine the scope and ambit of Section 498-A 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 purpose of this section, cruelty means –

(a) Any willful 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.

(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."

9. Cruelty has been defined by Explanation added to the section itself. The basic ingredients of Section 498A of the IPC, are cruelty and harassment. The elements of cruelty, so far as, Clause (a) is concerned, have been classified as follows:-

(i) Any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide.

(ii) Any willful conduct which is likely to cause grave injury to the woman.

(iii) Any willful conduct which is likely to cause danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman.

10. For the purpose of Clause (b), essential ingredients are as under:-

"Harassment of married woman with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand."

11. It is thus evident that charge under Section 498A of the IPC, can be brought home, if the es