ORDER

Both the applications have been heard together and are being disposed off by this common order.

2. The petitioners in Cr. Misc. No. 18665 of 2015 are the elder brother’s wife, elder brother, married sister-in-law and mother-in-law, who is reported to be dead, respectively.

3. Dr. Amrendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners in Cr. Misc No. 18665 of 2015 seeks permission of this Court to delete the name of petitioner No. 4/Sneh Prabha Devi (mother-in-law) from the array of the parties.

Permission is accorded.

The name of petitioner No. 4 is deleted.

4. In Cr. Misc. No. No. 19531 of 2015, the petitioners are the elder brother’s wife and elder brother, respectively, who are being represented by Mr. Ramakant Sharma, learned Senior Advocate.

5. The allegation in the F.I.R. is that shortly after the marriage of opposite party No. 2 with one Vinay Shankar, the demand of dowry in the shape of car and cash, which was initiated at the time of settlement of marriage, resurfaced. It has been alleged that all the members of the family including the petitioners in both the applications performed their part of incitement to the other family members to trouble and harass the opposite party No. 2. Details of the dates have been provided in the F.I.R., but those dates are only with respect to her having gone to her husband’s place of work and her parents’ house. There is also an allegation of petitioners having forced her to sign a blank sheet of paper admitting that she is committing suicide because of her own dissatisfaction with her life.

6. On the basis of the aforesaid accusation, the subject F.I.R. was registered against the petitioners, the husband of opposite party No. 2 and two others.

7. It is noteworthy to state here that in the case of two other accused persons about which reference has been made, viz., Rahul Raj @ Rahul and Ravi Shankar Rai, a Bench of this Court, way-back on 30.03.2015, set-aside the order of cognizance.

8. The aforesaid two petitions which are being disposed off by this order, was also filed in the year 2015, but the same could not be taken up earlier.

9. The main plank of the argument of the learned lawyer appearing for the petitioners is that only because the petitioners stand in some close relationship with the husband of opposite party No. 2, with whom she could not reside happily and successfully as his wife, they have been implicated in this false case. It has further been submitted that in the entire gamut of allegation, except for vague accusation, nothing specific has been alleged against the petitioners. Even married daughter of the family has not been spared.

10. Mr. Ramakant Sharma, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners, while referring to the judgment delivered by the Supreme Court in Preeti Gupta & Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr.; (2010) 7 SCC 667, has stated that the usual refrain of the Courts dealing with complaints and First Information Reports under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is that accusations are levelled against the family members of the husband with oblique motive and false accusations. It has been submitted that it has been his experience as a member of the Bar and as a citizen that more often than not, accusations are exaggerated and even distant relatives are made accused in a flash of tamper and with a motive to wreak vengeance on the family of the husband with whom the wife could not live successfully. At the time of filing of the complaint or F.I.R., the impact and consequences of the accusation are normally not properly visualized and the net result is that it leads to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to all, which includes the family of the complainant/informant and the family of the husband.

11. The Bench, while dealing with such a matter in case of Preeti Gupta (supra) could not keep itself oblivious to the developments in society and, therefore, also observed that the provision of Section 498-A is required to be given a serious re-look in the wake o