Judgment S.K.Katriar, J. 1. This application under the inherent powers of this Court has been preferred by the five petitioners with the prayer to quash the impugned order of cognizance dated 3.12.1993, whereby cognizance has been taken of the alleged offences under Sections 498-A, 406 and 379, 384, 408, 500 and 506, IPC, and the petitioners have been summoned to stand their trial. 2. According to the complaint petition dated 23.11.1993 (Annexure 1), the complainant is the father of one Ashok Kumar, who was married to one Anjani on 10.3.1992. She went to her sasural at Siwan where the couple lived like husband and wife. She went to Siwan on 1.6.1992 and soon thereafter she was taken away by her parents who are residents of Ajamgarh (U.P.) on a false pretext of her examinations. She was allowed to go to her parents house along with all her clothes, jewelleries and the gift which she had received. Thereafter she was not allowed to come to her sasural inspite of the repeated attempts of the complainant. This has resulted in severe bitterness between the two families, and the accused persons have repeatedly insulted the complainant and his family members resulting in loss of prestige and deprivation of peace of mind, apart from the valuable property. The learned Magistrate conducted an enquiry under Section 202, Cr PC and after perusal of materials on record passed the impugned order of cognizance. The accused persons are the girl, her parents, brothers, sisters, i.e. the naihar people of the girl. 3. While assailing the validity of the impugned order, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that Section 498-A of the IPC is available to the wife against the atrocities of her husband and her sasural people. This protection is not available to the husband and his relatives against the atrocities perpetrated by the girl and her naihar people. He further submitted that core of the complaint case is unreasonable attitude of the girls side, who are the petitioners herein, their refusal to allow her to go to her sasural. In his submission, therefore, once the core of the prosecution case which is sought to be covered under Section 498-A of the IPC fails, the remaining sections sought to be applied in the present case, also go. In his submission, therefore, once the core of the prosecution case which is sought to be covered under Section 498-A of the IPC fails, the remaining sections sought to be applied in the present case, also go. Learned Counsel further submitted that this is really a counter blast to the girls application under Section 125 of the Cr PC, claiming maintenance against her husband Ashok, filed in the Court of Additional Munsif Magistrate Vth, Ajamgarh, (U.P.), which has been registered as Case No. 227/92 Anjani V/s. Ashok Kumar. A photocopy of the said application is marked Annexure 2 hereof. 4. Learned Counsel for the com plainant (opposite part No. 2), opposes the complaint petition and submits that the issues raised by the accused petitioners are basically questions of facts which need evidence and can be gone into only after trial. He further submits that the girls application under Sections 125, Cr PC (Annexure 2) is on the face of it, false. 5. Having considered the rival submissions, I am of the view that this application has to be allowed. Learned Counsel for the petitioner is right in his submission that the core of the complaint case revolves around the grievances of the complaint against the parents of the girl on account of their refusal to send her back to her sasural and the remaining allegations appear to be embellishments. It is manifest from a plain reading of Section 498-A, IPC, that it affords protection to the wife against the atrocities of her husband and her sasural people. It does not in the least afford any protection to the husband or his family members against the alleged atrocities of the girls side. In such circumstances, no case at all under Section 498-A of the Code is made out on a plain reading of the complaint. Learned Counsel for the petitioners is further right in his submission that once the core of the prosecution case fails, the remaining charges automatically go. This Court is convinced that the complaint case is really for the purpose of harassment of accused persons. 6. In the result, this application is allowed, the impugned order of cognizance dated 3.12.1993 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siwan, in Case No. 1009/93 (Tr. No. 688/94) Sachitanand Pd. Barnwal v. Brij Mohan Lal Barnwal and others, is hereby quashed.