ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for opposite party no.2. 2. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 10.3.2011 passed in Complaint Case no.1247© of 2010, Tr. No. 1589 of 2011 by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Buxar by which he has taken cognizance against the petitioners under sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act but separately cognizance has been taken against accused-petitioner no.1, Shivjee Rai, under section 494 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. From the complaint petition it appears, the marriage of opposite party no.2 was solemnized with petitioner no.1, Shivjee Rai, on 21.2.1990 according to Hindu rites and allegation has been made, when she came to the husband’s place at the earlier stage, for two years her husband kept her with full dignity and honour but later on the husband, petitioner no.1 got employment in C.R.P.F., thereafter all the accused persons started demanding Rs.1,00,000/- and a motor-cycle and in case of failure threatened for another marriage of her husband. It has further been alleged that all the accused persons were threatening opposite pay no.2 physically and mentally even they were not providing the meal fairly and properly the same was informed to her brother who came, took her to the parents house. The complainant started living with her parents house and there also the accused persons demanded Rs.1,00,000/- and one mother-cycle otherwise petitioner no.1 will enter into the second marriage. The complainant stayed in her parents house for three years and none of the accused person tried to contact and know the condition of opposite party no.2. After great deal the complainant would go to husband’s house where again the accused persons started perpetrating torture. In the meantime, the complainant was blessed with a male child but the fury of accused persons did not subside and they used to assault the complainant. Looking to the prestige of the family she silently tolerated the torture. In course of time she conceived another child but she was forcibly got the abortion of the child. In the meantime, the complainant was blessed with a male child but the fury of accused persons did not subside and they used to assault the complainant. Looking to the prestige of the family she silently tolerated the torture. In course of time she conceived another child but she was forcibly got the abortion of the child. The complainant returned to the parents house in the year 1999 on the occasion of marriage of her nephew and she narrated the whole story and thereafter she wrote a letter to the Commandant making an allegation that petitioner no.1 husband had entered into another marriage but on question being asked the petitioner no.1 denied the second marriage and accordingly opposite party no.2 (complainant) started living with her husband and thereafter in the year 2001-2002 opposite party no.2 blessed with a girl child as well as male child respectively. She used to live at her Sasural and as well as her parents house. She never lost connection with her husband. In the year 2009 the complainant could know about the second marriage of her husband, petitioner no.1 with Prem Lata Kumari. After this marriage the accused persons started behaving violently as accused persons even started assaulting opposite party no.2 and accused persons were giving threatening for dire consequence but looking to the future of her children she tolerated every type of torture. In the complaint petition it has been stated that petitioner no.1 brought his newly wedded wife, namely, Prem Lata Kumari, accused no.9 opposite party no.2 raised serious objection, accused persons started assaulting her brutally, ultimately she was expelled from the house on 21.11.2010 which led to filing of the present case. 4. After investigation the court below took cognizance under the aforementioned sections. 5. From the record it appears that petitioner no.1 is the husband, petitioner no.2 is cousin father-in-law, petitioner nos. 3 and 4 are younger brother, petitioner no.5 and 6 are cousins, petitioner no.7 is aunt and petitioner no.8 is mother of petition no.1. 6. From the complaint petition it basically appears that allegation has been made against husband and one Prem Lata Kumari against whom there is an allegations of second marriage and there is no specific allegation against other accused persons rather only vague and omnibus allegation have been made against them. 7. 6. From the complaint petition it basically appears that allegation has been made against husband and one Prem Lata Kumari against whom there is an allegations of second marriage and there is no specific allegation against other accused persons rather only vague and omnibus allegation have been made against them. 7. 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 has become affair of the day that has been noticed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Preeti Gupta and another Vs. State of Jharkhand and another, reported in A.I.R. 2010 SC 3363 and recently the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the year 2012 in the case of Geeta Mehrotra and another Vrs. State of U.P. and another passed in Criminal Appeal No.1674 of 2012 paragraph nos. 14, 17, 19, 20, 21 and 27 where in the similar fact and situation the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that now it became tendency in general to rope all the family members in a case under section 498A of the Indian Penal code in order to undue harassment to the family members. It will be appropriate to quote paragraph nos. 34 and 35 of the aforesaid judgment in the case of Preeti Gupta (supra):– 34. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualised by the complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations. 35. 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 the husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of the 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 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 complainant are required to be scrutinised with great care and circumspection. 8. From the complaint petition it is clear that there is no specific allegation against petitioner nos. 2 to 8 whereas all the allegation has been made against accused no.1 (petitioner no.1) and accused no.9 who entered into the second marriage 9. In this view of the matter the order of cognizance dated 10.3.2011 so far as it relates to petitioner nos. 2 to 8 is quashed. With regard to petitioner no.1 the court below will proceed with the matter. 10. Accordingly this application is partly allowed.