ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

2. The present application has been filed by the petitioners invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court for quashing of the order dated 11.02.2020 passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Civil Court, Danapur in Complaint Case No. 42(C)/2020 whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taking under Section 498(A), 323, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. The prosecution case is that the informant alleges that her marriage has been solemnized with Uttam Raj in the year 2017 and after marriage she started to live with her husband and mother-in-law in a rental house. She further alleged that the sister of husband who were residing nearby only used to torture her and demand dowry of Rs. 2 lakhs .

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the prayer with regard to petitioner no. 1 has already been withdrawn.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submit that with regard to petitioner no. 2 and 3, they are married sister and her husband. They live separately and have no connection with day to day life of the complainant. He further relies upon the observation given by by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Abhishek vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in [2023 SCC Online SC 1083] and submitted that the petitioner no. 2 and 3 were implicated only only of their relations with husband of O.P. No. 2.

(13) Instances of a husband's family members filing a petition to quash criminal proceedings launched against them by his wife in the midst of matrimonial disputes are neither a rarity nor of recent origin. Precedents aplenty abound on this score.

We may now take note of some decisions of particular relevance. Recently, in Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam v. State of Bihar [(2022) 6 SCC 599], this Court had occasion to deal with a similar situation where the High Court had refused to quash a FIR registered for various offences, including Section 498A IPC. Noting that the foremost issue that required determination was whether allegations made against the in-laws were general omnibus allegations which would be liable to be quashed, this Court referred to earlier decisions wherein concern was expressed over the misuse of Section 498A IPC and the increased tendency to implicate relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes. This Court observed that false Implications by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial disputes, if left unchecked, would result in misuse of the process of law. On the facts of that case, it was found that no specific allegations were made against the in-laws by the wife and it was held that allowing their prosecution in the absence of clear allegations against the in-laws would result in an abuse of the process of law. It was also noted that a criminal trial, leading to an eventual acquittal, would inflict severe scars upon the accused and such an exercise ought to be discouraged.

14. In Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand [(2010) 7 SCC 667], this Court noted that the tendency to implicate the husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon in complaints filed under Section 498A IPC. It was observed that 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, as allegations of harassment by husband's close relations, who were living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided, would add an entirely different complexion and such allegations would have to be scrutinised with great care and circumspection.

15. Earlier, in Neelu Chopra v. Bharti [(2009) 10 SCC 184), this Court observed that the mere mention of statutory provisions and the language thereof, for lodging a complaint, is not the 'be all and end all of the matter, as what is required to be brought to the not