JUDGMENT Mr. Paramjeet Singh, J.: (Oral) - Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the complaint No.27/4 dated 15.11.2006 filed under Sections 406, 498-A, 323/34 IPC (Annexure P-4), summoning order dated 6.7.2009 (Annexure P-6) as well as the order dated 1.11.2010 (Annexure P- 7) whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana. 2. Briefly stated, respondent No.1 – Amninderpaul Kaur filed a complaint against the petitioners and others under Section 406, 498-A, 323, 34 IPC (Annexure P-4) wherein they have been summoned vide order dated 6.7.2009 (Annexure P-6) and the revision petition preferred by them against the summoning order has been dismissed vide order dated 1.11.2010 (Annexure P-7). The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1 was married to brother of petitioner No.1 on 19.2.2006. At the time of marriage, no dowry articles were given nor a demand was raised from the family of respondent No.1. Petitioner No.1 was studying in M.Sc. Industrial Chemistry in May 2007 in Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar. She remained in hostel from July 2005 to 2007. Petitioner No.2 is the mediator to the marriage between Amrinderpal Kaur respondent No.1 and Milandeep Singh, one of the accused in the complaint. Due to temperamental differences, she used to pick up quarrel with her husband and used to go to her parents house. It is alleged that the marriage between Milandeep Singh and respondent No.1 – Amninderpal Kaur was a simple marriage. Even the expenses of the marriage were incurred by the father and the mother of the petitioner. The father of respondent No.1 is working as an Electrician in Punjab Roadways Workshop, Ludhiana. Respondent No.1 was doing Diploma in Sewing from IGNOU at village Bullepur near Khanna and was pressurizing her husband to shift to Khanna . In order to attend her classes of the said course, respondent No.1 used to leave Ludhiana every Monday and return in the evening of Friday. Even the pocket money was given by the parents of petitioner No.1. It is alleged in the petition that on 10.7.2006, respondent No.1 left for Khanna as a routine to attend the classes and took away all jewellry and clothes and thereafter refused to come back. Thereafter, an attempt was made to bring her back but her family refused to send her back. It is alleged in the petition that on 10.7.2006, respondent No.1 left for Khanna as a routine to attend the classes and took away all jewellry and clothes and thereafter refused to come back. Thereafter, an attempt was made to bring her back but her family refused to send her back. The brother of respondent No.1 gave beating to the brother of petitioner No.1 and the matter was registered at Police Station Sadar Khanna but it was ultimately compromised. The complaint and the compromise are Annexures P-1 and P-2 respectively on the paper book. Due to the fact that the complaint was lodged against the brother of respondent No.1, they further lodged a false and frivolous application against the parents of petitioner No.1 before the SSP Khanna and during the course of enquiry, none from the family of respondent No.1 appeared nor the complainant appeared. Ultimately the complaint was declared as false. The report of the Investigating Officer is Annexure P-3. Thereafter, the complainant had filed a complaint Annexure P-4 wherein the petitioners along with other were summoned (Annexure P-6). Against their summoning, the petitioners herein filed a revision petition which was dismissed vide order Annexure P-7. Hence, this petition. 3. Upon notice of motion, the respondents appeared and filed their respective replies denying the averments in the petition. However, in the reply of respondent No.1 factum of enquiry by DSP, Khanna has been admitted. 4. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, State as well as the complainant-respondent No1. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that there are no specific allegations against the petitioners with regard to entrustment of dowry articles and the demand of dowry; no date and time has been mentioned when such demand was raised by the petitioners. The factum that petitioner No.1 unmarried sister-in-law (Nanad) was a student at GNDU, Amritsar from 2005 to 2007 has not been denied specifically. A certificate to this effect is Annexure P-5 which indicates that petitioner No.1 was a student from May 2005 to June 2007 and had passed M.Sc. Industrial Chemistry. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further argued that there is no allegation against petitioner No.1 who is a mediator to the marriage and was a go between the marriage of respondent No.1 and brother of petitioner No.2, i.e., Milandeep Singh. Industrial Chemistry. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further argued that there is no allegation against petitioner No.1 who is a mediator to the marriage and was a go between the marriage of respondent No.1 and brother of petitioner No.2, i.e., Milandeep Singh. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further argued that the perusal of the complaint and the preliminary evidence recorded clearly indicates that no offence is made out from the bare reading thereof against the petitioners. The only allegations against the petitioners are mentioned in paras No.5 and 7 of the complaint (Annexure P-4). The first version has been given by the complaint and in her complaint Annexure P-3, no allegations have been levelled against both the petitioners. Only general allegations have been levelled that mother-in-law, father-in-law and the husband were hurling bad abuses as a a result of which it was not possible for the complainant to stay with the family and other general allegation is that of harassment by the family members. 7. The above contentions have been vehemently opposed by the learned Counsel for the complainant stating that specific allegations have been levelled against the petitioners. It is further submitted that the complainant was harassed by the in-laws family and the dowry articles were entrusted to them which have not been returned. He has supported the summoning order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class as well as the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissing the revision petition. 8. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and perused Annexures P-3 and P-4. Annexure P-3 is the first application given to SSP, Police District Khanna alleging that at the time of marriage, the parents of the complainant have spent more than their status and Motor cycle, colour TV, watch, refrigerator, furniture, gold ornaments etc. had been given. But in para 4 of the complaint to the SSP, Khanna, it is mentioned that earlier her husband was working at a medical shop and now he is doing nothing, rather, he has become a drug addict. Similar is the position with regard to the allegations in the complaint filed before the learned Magistrate. There are no specific averments as to when the complainant was tortured by petitioners no.1 and 2; when the demand was raised; when any articles were entrusted to them; when they caused injury to her. Similar is the position with regard to the allegations in the complaint filed before the learned Magistrate. There are no specific averments as to when the complainant was tortured by petitioners no.1 and 2; when the demand was raised; when any articles were entrusted to them; when they caused injury to her. There is no medical evidence with regard to the beating etc. Rather, there is evidence on record to show that brother of petitioner No.1 was beaten up by brother of respondent No.1 and thereafter panchayati compromise was reached. Compromise has been annexed as Annexure P-2. In the face of this situation when there is no entrustment of any article nor there are specific allegations against the petitioners, the petitioners herein cannot be proceeded against. Petitioner No.1 is the unmarried sister-in-law who at the relevant point of time was pursing M.Sc. Industrial Chemistry at GNDU, Amritsar and petitioner No.2 is the middleman who arranged marriage between the complainant and the brother of petitioner No.1. Even against petitioner No.2, no specific allegations are levelled. Only allegation against him is to the effect that he had informed the complainant that her parents had not given some dowry articles. Even no date is mentioned when these were uttered. In the face of this situation, learned counsel for the complainant failed to rebut these facts and also failed to point out specific entrustment of particular articles. 9. From the above, since there is no specific entrustment of any article to the petitioners, offence under Section 406 IPC is not made out. There is not an iota of evidence on record with regard to offence under Section 323 IPC as there is no medical evidence or any other evidence which may show that offence under Section 323 IPC is made out. The offence under Section 498-A IPC is also not made out as neither of the petitioners was to be benefited by raising the demand of dowry. 10. At this stage, it would be relevant to reproduce the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court made in Preeti Gupta & another v. State of Jharkhand & another, [2010(5) Law Herald (SC) 3235] : AIR 2010 SC 3363 : (2010)7 SCC 667 , which read as under:- “28. It is a matter of common knowledge that unfortunately matrimonial litigation is rapidly increasing in our country. It is a matter of common knowledge that unfortunately matrimonial litigation is rapidly increasing in our country. All the courts in our country including this court are flooded with matrimonial cases. This clearly demonstrates discontent and unrest in the family life of a large number of people of the society. 29. The courts are receiving a large number of cases emanating from section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code which reads as under:- “498-A. 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 purposes 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.” 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. As a result, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside. Consequently, this appeal is allowed.” 11. For the foregoing discussion and the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the present petition is allowed and the impugned complaint, summoning order and the impugned orders and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua the petitioners. ---------0.B.S.0------------