JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been filed by father-in- law Udai Singh and mother-in-law Smt. Sampat Kanwar W/o Udai Singh against the order dated 11.5.2009, whereby, the learned trial Court discharged the present petitioners from the charge of Section 406 I.P.C. but however, charged the present petitioners for the offence under Section 498A I.P.C. The petitioner No. 2 Smt. Sampat Kanwar has expired during the pendency of this revision petition and, therefore, qua her the revision petition is dismissed as having become infructuous and, therefore, this revision petition was pressed only qua petitioner No. 1 Udai Singh. 2. The brief facts giving rise to present revision petition are like this. Son of the two petitioners, Jitendra Singh, who on the date of incident 10.8.2008 was working as Deputy Superintendent of Police and was married to the deceased Geetika D/o complainant Durga Ram Charan on 21.11.2002. About six years ago is said to have shot dead his wife Geetika and an F.I.R. was lodged at about 9.30 P.M. on 10.8.2008 by the father of the deceased Durga Ram Charan in which he stated that on 10.8.2008 when he alongwith his wife and brother Peeth Dan Charan were visiting the residential house of Jitendra Singh and deceased Geetika at house No. 467 Sector 4, Hiran Magri, Udaipur at about 8.00 P.M. in the evening and their daughter Geetika was supposed to accompany them, the accused Jitendra Singh shot dead their daughter in their presence and when they tried to go to the room which they were there but since the room was closed and when he saw from the window of that room, Jitendra Singh also fired at the complainant father Durga Ram Charan, who somehow escaped and ran out of the house. It may be stated that accused Jitendra Singh being tried for the alleged offence under Section 302 I.P.C. in the same trial Court. The complainant also stated that present petitioners father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased Geetika were also harassing her for demand of dowry right from the time of their marriage in the year 2002 and despite their request to these petitioners to come and live with their daughter and son-in-law Jitendra at Udaipur, they did not come there and that is why on account of dispute between the husband and wife the accused Jitendra Singh killed their daughter. Upon the said F.I.R. the police investigated the said offence and after recording statements of the complainant Durga Ram Charan, his wife Smt. Nirmala and brother Peeth Dan Charan and on further investigation, a charge-sheet was filed and the case was committed for trial where charges were framed against the accused Jitendra Singh as aforesaid under Section 302 I.P.C. and other provisions of Indian Penal Code and against present petitioners, one of whom has expired, under Section 498A I.P.C. 3. The present revision petition was filed by these two petitioners in this Court on 15.5.2009 against the impugned order dated 11.5.2009 passed by the learned trial Court framing charged against the accused petitioners. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Mahesh Bora vehemently submitted that no case at all was made out against the present petitioners, who were living in their village near Sojat City even prior to the marriage on 21.11.2002 and never visited the residential house at Udaipur where their son- accused Jitendra and daughter-in-law Geetika were residing. He submitted that the present petitioners were unnecessary implicated and roped in for the alleged offence under Section 498A I.P.C. and averments made in the F.I.R. itself are absolutely vague and do not specify any specific demand of dowry by these two petitioners and neither any amount or thing or articles have been mentioned nor any date or period have been mentioned by any of the persons. Whose statements were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by the police during investigation. He submitted that while discharging the present petitioners from the alleged offence under Section 406 I.P.C., the learned trial Court erred in framing charge under Section 498A I.P.C. against the present petitioners. He submitted that even at this stage when the trial has commenced and couple of prosecution witnesses have been examined, if this Court is satisfied that no charge is made out under Section 498A I.P.C., the said charge can be quashed. He relied upon some of the judgments of the Supreme Court and this Court in support of his contentions. Which will be dealt with hereinafter. 5. On the side opposite, learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. He relied upon some of the judgments of the Supreme Court and this Court in support of his contentions. Which will be dealt with hereinafter. 5. On the side opposite, learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. S.D. Purohit, learned counsel for the complainant submitted that from the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. the charge for the offence under Section 498A I.P.C. was prima facie made out against the present petitioners, which survives against petitioner No. 1, who is alive and trial having been commenced, this revision petition has become infructuous as there is no reason to quash the said charge in the revisional jurisdiction. He drew the attention of this Court towards the statement of uncle of the deceased Peeth Dan Charan and submitted that not only at the time of marriage the present petitioners demanded Rs. 11,000/- for construction of some temple at their village but also the complainant family ahd to spent lot of money in the litigation for selection of accused Jitendra Singh in Rajasthan Police Services in the Courts of law and therefore, it can be prima facie seen that for the demand made by the present petitioners as well as accused husband Jitendra Singh, charge under Section 498A I.P.C. was made out against them. He, therefore, prayed for rejection of the present revision petition. 6. I have heard learned counsels at length and perused the statements, F.I.R. and judgments cited at the bar. 7. In Neelu Chopra & Anr. v. Bharti, JT 2009(13) SC 334 , the Hon'be Supreme Court held in para No. 5 that in order to lodge a proper complaint. Mere mention of the sections and the language of those sections is not be all and end of the matter. What is required to be brought to the notice of the Court is the particulars of the offence committed by each and every accused and the role played by each and every accused in committing of that offence. Finding the complaint to be sadly vague and lacking these particulars, the Hon'ble Supreme Court quashed the complaint under Section 498A I.P.C. 8. This Court in Kulwant Rai & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 2006(2) CJ (Raj.) Cr. Finding the complaint to be sadly vague and lacking these particulars, the Hon'ble Supreme Court quashed the complaint under Section 498A I.P.C. 8. This Court in Kulwant Rai & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 2006(2) CJ (Raj.) Cr. 635 , the Coordinate Bench of this Court similarly quashed the order of trial Court to the extent of framing charge under Section 498A I.P.C. against father-in-law and mother-in-law finding that from the statement of witnesses recorded by the police during investigation prima facie it did not appear that the petitioners father-in-law, mother-in-law had any occasion to harass the complainant and subject her to any cruelty. 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case 'of Sushil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 2005 SC 3100 , lamented the misuse of provisions of Section 498A I.P.C. and described these provisions even as a legal terrorism. The relevant Para 18 is reproduced hereunder for ready reference : "The object of the provision is prevention of the dowry meance. But as has been rightly contended by the petitioner many instances have come to light where the complaints are not bona fide and have filed with obligue motive. In such cases acquittal of the accused does not in all cases wipe out the ignomy suffered during and prior to trial. Sometimes adverse media coverage adds to the misery. The question, therefore, is what remedial measures can be taken to prevent abuse of the well- intentioned provision. Merely because the provision is constitutional and intra vires. Does not give a licence to unscrupulous persons to wreck personal vendetta or unleash harassment. It may, therefore, become necessary for the legislature to find out ways how the makers of frivolous complaints or allegations can be appropriately dealt with. Till then 'the Courts have to take care of the situation within the existing frame work. As noted the object is to strike at the roots of dowry menace. But by misuse of the provision a new legal terrorism can be unleashed. The provision is intended to be used a shield and not assassins' weapon. If cry of "wolf" is made too often as a prank assistance and protection may not be available when the actual "wolf" appears. There is no question of investigating agency and Courts casually dealing with the allegations. The provision is intended to be used a shield and not assassins' weapon. If cry of "wolf" is made too often as a prank assistance and protection may not be available when the actual "wolf" appears. There is no question of investigating agency and Courts casually dealing with the allegations. They cannot follow any strait jacket formula in the matters relating to dowry tortures, deaths and cruelty. It cannot be lost sight of that ultimate objective of every legal system is to arrive at truth, punish the guilty and protect the innocent. There is no scope for any preconceived notion or view. It is strenuously argued by the petitioner that the investigating agencies and the Courts start with the presumption that the accused persons are guilty and that the complainant is speaking the truth. This is too wide available and generalised statement. Certain statutory presumption are drawn which again are reputable. It is to be noted that the role of the investigating agencies and the Courts is that of watch dog and not of a bloodhound. It should be their effort to see that in innocent person is not made to suffer on account of unfounded, baseless and malicious allegations. It is equally indisputable that in many cases no direct evidence is available and the Courts have to act on circumstantial evidence. While dealing with such cases, the law laid down relating to circumstantial evidence has to be kept in view." 10. In a recent decision of another Bench of Apex Court in Preeti Gupta & Anr. v. State of Jharkhand & Anr., 2010(3) SCC Cri. 473 , the Court has gone to the extent of recommending a serious relook at the provisions of Section 498A I.P.C. looking to the various cases of misuses of this provision brought on the Stature Book by insertion of Chapter XXA by Act No. 46 of 1983 w.e.f. 25.12.1983. The provisions of Section 498A are also quoted below for ready reference : "498A. 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. 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 wilful 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; or (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." The relevant paras of the decision in Preeti Giupta's case (supra) are also quoted below for ready reference : "37. Before parting with this case, we would like to observe that a serious relook of the entire provision is warranted by the legislation. 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 is also reflected in a very large number of cases. The criminal trials lead to immense sufferings for all concerned. Even ultimate acquittal in the trial may also not be able to wipe out the deep scars of suffering of ignominy. Unfortunately a large number of these complaints have not only flooded the Courts but also have led to enormous social unrest affecting peace, harmony and happiness of the society. It is high time that the legislature must take into consideration the pragmatic realities and make suitable changes in the existing law. It is imperative for the legislature to take into consideration the informed public opinion and the pragmatic realities in consideration and make necessary changes in the relevant provisions of law. 38. We direct the Registry to send a copy of this judgment to the Law Commission and to the Union Law Secretary, Government of India who may place it before the Hon'ble Minister for Law and Justice to take appropriate steps in the larger interest of the society. 39. 38. We direct the Registry to send a copy of this judgment to the Law Commission and to the Union Law Secretary, Government of India who may place it before the Hon'ble Minister for Law and Justice to take appropriate steps in the larger interest of the society. 39. When the facts and circumstances of the case are considered in the background of legal principles set out in preceding paragraphs, then it would be unfair to compel the appellants to undergo the rigmarole of a criminal trial. In the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to quash the complaint against the appellants. As a result, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside. Consequently, this appeal is allowed." 11. The necessary ingredients to make an offence under Section 498A I.P.C. is subjecting a woman to cruelty, which is defined in Explanation (a) and (b) of the said provision, which cruelty can be either physical or mental or both. Explanation defining the term 'Cruelty' includes (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; or (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. 12. Thus, it can be seen that unless some sort of cruelty is caused, which may be mental or physical or both, with a view to demand dowry or to coerce her or any person related to her to meet such unlawful demand, the offence cannot be said to have been made out. Similarly, if a willful conduct on the part of the offenders, 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 does not exist, the said offence is not constituted. 13. Similarly, if a willful conduct on the part of the offenders, 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 does not exist, the said offence is not constituted. 13. The object of this provision was obviously to provide a sense of security to the woman in her matrimonial home where husband and other relatives of the husband may cause or create such a suffocating environment in which either the woman causes injury to her body or commit suicide and, therefore, the facts of a particular case should prima facie satisfy the Court that the necessary ingredients for this offence exist if the alleged offender is to be charged for the said offence and has to be tied for the same. The shades of facts can differ from case to case and, therefore, every time the Courts has to weigh whether such complaint, averments, statements and materials which come before the Investigating Agency and the case fall within the four corners of the provisions of Section 498A I.P.C. 14. It is true that if an offence is prima facie made out at the stage of charge, it is not necessary to weight evidence in its all niceties but the Court has to satisfy whether from the materials available before it, offence is made out or not and if made out whether the accused has to be tried for the same or not. At the same time, if the Court comes to the conclusion, on the face of such materials available, that necessary ingredients for the offence tinder Section 498A are not made out at all and the trial on the basis of such charge would be an exercise in futility and would amount to abuse of process of law, then it is duty of the Court to ensure that no such harassment to the accused takes place and he is discharged from such charge because unnecessary trial on frivolous charges can be as bad as punishing the innocent. That is what the concern of the Courts is the judgments cited above in the case dealing with the provisions of Section 498A I.P.C. 15. That is what the concern of the Courts is the judgments cited above in the case dealing with the provisions of Section 498A I.P.C. 15. In light of the aforesaid position of law, if the facts of the present case are analyzed, this Court finds charge of Section 498A I.P.C. against the present petitioners was not made out. The first version given by the complainant in the F.I.R. makes a vague allegation that father and mother of the accused Jitendra Singh, who killed their daughter Geetika, harassed her for dowry. What was their demand and when it was demanded and what did they do to complainant or any of the relatives to meet such unlawful demand is nowhere stated Similar was the version given by wife of the complainant Sint. Nirmala in the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and same was the position in the statements of uncle Peeth Dan Charan, who also narrated the story of meeting of litigation expenses in relation to selection of accused Jitendra Singh in the Rajasthan Police Services. Even in his statement, he has only stated about spending a sum of Rs. 1 lac or son on such litigation but does not state that present petitioners demanded any amount from the complainant or from him. Even in his statement, he has only stated about spending a sum of Rs. 1 lac or son on such litigation but does not state that present petitioners demanded any amount from the complainant or from him. Therefore, the inclusion of allegation of demand of dowry by the complainant father and mother of the deceased and even uncle of the deceased appears to be wild and vague much less any allegation of causing any cruelty against present petitioners has been made in F.I.R./statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The fact that the present petitioners were living separately from the couple Jitendra Singh and Geetika who being in police service was living away from his village through out after his marriage and the present petitioners never or may be rarely visited their place of residence, in the opinion of this Court, puts them away far from the reach of provisions of Section 498A I.P.C. The averments in the F.I.R. that complainant himself requested the present petitioners to come and live with their daughter and son-in-law at Udaipur, so as to intervene in their family dispute lest something untoward will happen further shows that if present petitioners were causing any harassment or cruelty or were raising any dowry demand, why the complainant at all would have asked them to come to Udaipur to live with their daughter and son-in-law Jitendra Singh. Therefore, it can be inferred that the allegations made against the present petitioners in the F.I.R. and in statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were so made merely to rope in the present petitioners also into the unnecessary trial for the offence under Section 498A I.P.C. In the opinion of this Court, while the trial Court discharged the present petitioners for the offence under Section 406 I.P.C., discussing that none of the articles of matrimonial home was ever found in the village residential house of present petitioners and the fact that they were living separately right from the time of marriage of Jitendra and Geetika in 2002 till the date of incident in 2008 should have satisfied the good conscience of the trial Court to discharge the present petitioners also from the charge under Section 498A I.P.C. Therefore, irrespective of the fact that trial has commenced and couple of witnesses might have been examined by the learned trial Court merely on account of lapse of some time since filing of the present revision petition on 15.5.2009 till now, it cannot be held that the revision petition has become infructuous by sheer lapse of time or on the ground that trial has proceeded to some extent and this Court having been satisfied that no charge for the offence under Section 498A I.P.C. is made out against the present petitioners, is inclined to quash the charge against the present petitioners even at this stage. 16. In view of the above, the present revision petition is allowed. The order dated 11.5.2009 passed by the learned trial Court framing charge against present petitioners under Section 498A I.P.C. is quashed.Revision allowed. *******