JUDGMENT Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.: (Oral) - Tersely, the facts & material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the instant petition and emanating from the record, are that, the marriage of complainant-Kulwinder Kaur, respondent No.2 (for brevity “the complainant”) was solemnized with Rajinder Singh son of Sukhdev Singh on 12.6.2004, according to Sikh rites and ceremonies at Mandi Kalanwali, District Sirsa. Her parents were stated to have given the sufficient dowry articles, including furniture, electrical articles, beddings, clothes, utensils, besides golden ornaments, more than their capacity. After solemnization of the marriage, they resided and cohabited as husband & wife and one female child was born out of the said wedlock. It was claimed by the complainant that after the marriage, the accused started taunting, harassing and gave beating to her for bringing less dowry. Petitioner No.1 Tarsem Kaur is married sister-in law of the complainant, whereas petitioner No.2 Gurwinder Singh is her (petitioner No.1’s) husband. 2. Leveling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, according to the complainant that all the accused misappropriated her dowry articles, demanded motorcycle and treated her with cruelty in connection with and on account of demand of dowry. The only allegations attributed to petitioner No.1 (married sister-in-law) are that she used to ask the complainant’s husband to turn her out of the matrimonial home and she will manage his marriage in some rich family. In the background of these allegations, the complainant filed a private complaint (Annexure P-1), in which, the accused were summoned to face the trial for the commission of offences punishable under sections 498-A, 406 and 506 read with section 149 IPC, by virtue of impugned summoning order dated 12.9.2009 (Annexure P2) by the CJM, Sirsa. 3. Aggrieved by it, petitioners Tarsek Kaur, sister-in-law and her husband Gurwinder Kaur have preferred the present petition, to quash the impugned complaint (Annexure P-1), summoning order (Annexure P- 2) and order dated 11.8.2010 (Annexure P3) passed by Additional Sessions Judge, invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C. 4. The case set up by the petitioners, in brief in so far as relevant, was that the marriage of complainant was solemnized with Rajinder Singh on 12.6.2004, whereas the marriage of petitioner No.1 was performed with petitioner No.2 in the year 1995 (i.e. more than nine years prior to her marriage). They are living in their separate house. The case set up by the petitioners, in brief in so far as relevant, was that the marriage of complainant was solemnized with Rajinder Singh on 12.6.2004, whereas the marriage of petitioner No.1 was performed with petitioner No.2 in the year 1995 (i.e. more than nine years prior to her marriage). They are living in their separate house. Petitioner No.1 is working as SS Mistress in Govt. High School Jagmalwali. They have got two daughters, aged about 14 and 8 years respectively. They have been falsely implicated in the private complaint. According to the petitioners that no offences whatsoever under sections 406 and 498-A IPC are made out against them. On the strength of aforesaid grounds, the petitioners sought to quash the impugned complaint (Annexure P-1), summoning order (Annexure P-2) and order (Annexure P3), in the manner described here-in-above. 5. The complainant-respondent refuted the prayer of the petitioners and filed the reply, inter alia, pleading certain preliminary objections of, maintainability of the petition, cause of action and locus standi of the petitioners. The petitioners were stated to have been rightly summoned by the Magistrate, by way impugned summoning order (Annexure P2), which was affirmed by the revisional Court, by means of impugned order (Annexure P3). Instead of reproducing the entire contents of the reply and in order to avoid the repetition, suffice it to say that, the complainant has reiterated the allegations contained in the impugned complaint(Annexure P-1). However, the inter-se relationship between the parties and factual matrix is acknowledged by her. It will not be out of place to mention here that she has stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the main petition and prayed for its dismissal. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after deep consideration over the entire matter, to my mind, the instant petition deserves to be accepted in this context. 7. Ex facie, the arguments of learned counsel that since there are allegations that as and when petitioners used to come to the matrimonial home of complainant, they used to taunt and ask the husband of complainant to turn her out of matrimonial home as they will manage his 2nd marriage, so, the trial Magistrate has rightly summoned them to face the trial for the pointed offences, are not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. 8. 8. As is evident from the record that, as per certificate (Annexure P5), petitioner No.1 is SS Mistress in Government High School at Jagmalwali since 24.10.1997 and petitioner No.2 is her husband. Their marriage was solemnized in the year 1995, whereas, the marriage of complainant was performed with Rajinder Singh on 12.6.2004 i.e. nine years after their marriage. As per ration card (Annexure P4), the petitioners along with their other two daughters, namely, Ravneet Kaur and Veerjot Kaur are separately residing in their own house. In that eventuality, how, when, in what manner and in whose presence, they have treated the complainant with cruelty or in any way remotely connected with the commission of indicated offences, remains an unfolded mystery. The complainant appears to have maliciously and vexatiously involved the petitioners in this case, in order to wreak vengeance and to take the revenge after five years from solemnization of their marriage. 9. Moreover, very vague allegations are assigned to the petitioners in the complaint. The only allegations attributed to them by the complainant, are that as and when they used to come to her matrimonial home, they used to taunt her and asked her husband to turn her out of the matrimonial home as they will manage his 2nd marriage. The allegations are as vague as anything in so far as the commission of indicated offences are concerned. Moreover, no specific role or overt-act is attributed to the petitioners. Above-all, it is highly impossible to believe that petitioner No.1, who is working as SS Mistress in Govt. High School Jagmalwali and her husband, would treat her with cruelty in connection with and on account of demand of dowry, as and when they used to come to her matrimonial home. All the main allegations, in regard to cruelty in connection with and on account of demand of dowry articles, are assigned to main accused Rajinder Singh (husband) and his other relatives, who are not the petitioners before me and are facing trial before the trial Magistrate. 10. It is now well settled principle of law that, in order to attract the penal provisions of the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC, there must be specific allegations/overt acts and prima facie material against the petitioners to indicate that the dowry articles were actually entrusted to them and they misappropriated the same. 10. It is now well settled principle of law that, in order to attract the penal provisions of the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC, there must be specific allegations/overt acts and prima facie material against the petitioners to indicate that the dowry articles were actually entrusted to them and they misappropriated the same. For the fault of the husband, the in-laws and other relations cannot, in all cases, be held to be involved in the demand of dowry. In cases, where such accusation is made, the overt acts attributed to such persons, other than husband, are required to be prima facie established. By mere conjectures and implications, such relations cannot be held to be involved for the offences relating to the demand of dowry, which are totally lacking in the present case. As the Bench mark, all the essential ingredients to constitute the offences and element of the complicity of petitioners, are totally missing, therefore, to me, no criminal prosecution can legally be permitted to continue against them. 11. As strange as it may appear, but strictly speaking, the tendency and frequency of the wives of involving and roping in all the relations of her in-laws in the matter of demand of dowry have been tremendously increasing day by day, which is adversely affecting social fabric of the society and leaving the Courts in lurch to decide such criminal prosecution. This tendency needs to be curbed and if not discouraged, it is likely to affect and weaken the case of the prosecution even against the real culprits in future. In this manner, the very purpose of introducing Section 498-A IPC would pale into insignificance in this relevant connection. This matter is no more res integra and now well settled. 12. An identical question recently came to be decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case Preeti Gupta & Another v. State of Jharkhand & Another, [2010(5) Law Herald (SC) 3235] : 2010(7) SCC 667 . After interpreting the provisions of Section 498-A IPC, it was ruled as under (paras 30 to 36) :- “30. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under section 498-A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under section 498-A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment are also a matter of serious concern. 31. The learned members of the Bar have enormous social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fiber of family life is not ruined or demolished. They must ensure that exaggerated versions of small incidents should not be reflected in the criminal complaints. Majority of the complaints are filed either on their advice or with their concurrence. The learned members of the Bar who belong to a noble profession must maintain its noble traditions and should treat every complaint under section 498-A as a basic human problem and must make serious endeavour to help the parties in arriving at an amicable resolution of that human problem. They must discharge their duties to the best of their abilities to ensure that social fiber, peace and tranquility of the society remains intact. The members of the Bar should also ensure that one complaint should not lead to multiple cases. 32. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualized by the complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations. 33. 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 husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of 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 complaint are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection. 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 complaint are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection. Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony and bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter of common knowledge that in cases filed by the complainant if the husband or the husband’s relations had to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful. 34. 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. 35. 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. 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 & Justice to take appropriate steps in the larger interest of the society. 36. 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. 36. 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.” 13. The same proposition of law was earlier settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases Ramesh and others Versus State of Tamil Nadu, 2005(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 68, Sushil Kumar Sharma Versus Union of India and others, 2005(3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 745 and Kans Raj Versus State of Punjab and others, 2000(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 695. 14. Not only that, this Court has also considered this aspect of the matter in cases Harjinder Kaur and others v. State of Punjab 2004(4) RCR(Criminal) 332; Labh Singh and others v. State of Haryana 2006(2) RCR (Criminal) 296; Rakesh Kumar and others v. State of Punjab and others, [2009(1) Law Herald (P&H) 584] : 2009(2) RCR (Criminal) 565; Mohinder Kaur & Others v. State of Punjab & Another, [2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 805] : 2010 (2) RCR(Criminal) 597, Paramjit Kaur v. State of Punjab, [2010(4) Law Herald (P&H) 2677] : 2011(5) RCR (Criminal) 686 and Ritu Khurana and another v. Brij Lal Chopra 2012 (2) RCR (Criminal) 117; wherein it was held that “the allegations against the relatives of the husband were vague and there is growing tendency to come out with inflated and exaggerated allegations roping in each and every relation of the husband, things have now taken a reverse trend and the women are abusing beneficial provisions of Section 498-A IPC.” The ratio of law laid down in the aforesaid judgments “mutatis mutandis” is duly applicable to the facts of the instant case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand. 15. Sequelly, if the crux of the allegations levelled against the petitioners as discussed here-in-above, is clubbed together and is perused, then, to my mind, no offences in question are made out and the complainant has vexatiously and maliciously filed the complaint (Annexure P-1) against them, in order to wreak vengeance. 15. Sequelly, if the crux of the allegations levelled against the petitioners as discussed here-in-above, is clubbed together and is perused, then, to my mind, no offences in question are made out and the complainant has vexatiously and maliciously filed the complaint (Annexure P-1) against them, in order to wreak vengeance. In case, the complainant is permitted to prosecute her sister-in-law and her husband, who are residing separately with their two daughters in their own house, then, it will inculcate and perpetuate great injustice to them. Therefore, the complainant appears to have falsely involved the petitioners in the present case. The Magistrate did not apply his mind, ignored all these vital aspects of the matter and summoned the petitioners in a very casual manner, by virtue of impugned summoning order(Annexure P-2). The same very mistake was repeated by the revisional Court in the impugned order (Annexure P3). Thus, the impugned complaint (Annexure P-1), summoning order (Annexure P-2), order (Annexure P3) and all other subsequent proceedings arising thereto, qua the petitioners only, deserve to be quashed in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 16. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the counsel for the parties. 17. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial against the remaining main accused, the instant petition is accepted. Consequently, the impugned complaint(Annexure P- 1), summoning order (Annexure P-2), order (Annexure P3) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, with regard and relatable to the petitioners only, are hereby quashed. They are accordingly, discharged from the indicated criminal complaint filed against them. 18. Needless to mention that, nothing observed here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on the merits of the complaint, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition only. ---------0.B.S.0------------