The central legal point established in the judgment is the need for careful scrutiny of matrimonial cases to avoid over implication and undue harassment.

Birendra Kumar, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the opposite parties the State of Bihar and opposite party No. 2 Mamta Devi. This application is under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the impugned order dated 4.1.2008 against the petitioner whereby the petitioner and other co-accused persons have been issued summons to face trial for offences under Sections 323, 498-A and 312 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with Complaint Case No. 902 of 2007 by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jehanabad.

2. Submission of the petitioner is that the petitioner is distant relation of the matrimonial family of complainant Mamta Devi and a bare perusal of the complaint petition would reveal that allegation against the petitioner is general and omnibus.

3. Learned counsel submits that the present proceeding against the petitioner, who is a member of armed forces, has been brought just to cause undue harassment. Contention is that now a tendency has developed in the society that for dispute between husband and wife, the entire family members and relations including some distant relations are falsely roped with such type of allegation just to put wrong pressure. Learned counsel has placed reliance on case of Shiv Jee Rai v. The State of Bihar & Anr. reported in 2013(3) PLJR 139 and on case of Ajay Kumar Chaudhary & Ors. v. The State of Bihar & Anr. reported in 2014(3) PLJR 263.

4. In Shiv Jee Rai's case (supra) the similar allegation against the petitioner was vague and omnibus similar to the present case and in para 7 of the judgment, the Court has observed as follows:--

"7. It is also a matter of common knowledge that exaggerated versions of the incident are reflected in a large number of complaints. The tendency of over implication has become affair of the day that has been noticed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Freer/Gupta and Another v. State of Jharkhand and Another, reported in A.I.R. 2010 SC 3363 : [2010(4) PLJR (SC) 36] and recently the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the year 2012 in the case of Geeta Mehrotra and Another v. State of UP. and Another passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1674 of 2012 in paragraph Nos. 14, 17, 19, 20, 21 and 27 where in the similar fact and situation the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that now it became tendency in general to rope all the family members in a case under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code in order to (sic) undue harassment to the family members. It will be appropriate to quote paragraph Nos. 34 and 35 of the aforesaid judgment in the case of Preeti Gupta (supra):--

34. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualised by the complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations.

35. 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 the husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of the 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 complainant are required to be scrutinised with great care and circumspection."

5. In Ajay Kumar Chaudhary's case (supra) also the allegation was general and omnibus against the petitioners similar to the present case and in para 12 of the judgment, the Court has observed as follows:--

"12. The Apex Court, in the case of G