JUDGMENT 1. - S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1049/2011, Dinesh Shartna v. State & Anr., S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1040/2011, Rekha @ Poonam v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., and S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1329/2011, Smt. Pushpa Devi v. State & Anr., shall be decided together by way of a common order. 2. All the three petitioners are named as accused in F.I.R. No. 103/2010 registered at Woman Police Station, District Hanumangarh for the offences under Sections 498-A, 406 and 323 I.P.C. The petitioners being accused in the above said F.I.R. have sought quashing of F.I.R. and the order dated 23.10.2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Hanumangarh whereby cognizance was taken against the petitioners for the above said offences. The petitioners have also prayed for setting aside the order dated 22.4.2011 passed by the Revisional Court below whereby the order passed by the Magistrate was affirmed. 3. The facts have been succinctly pul in the order dated 25.7.2011 issuing notice in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1049/2011, Dinesh Sharma v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., and S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1050/2011, Rekha @ Poonam v. State & Anr. The order dated 25.7.2011 reads as under: "Heard. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Preeti Gupta & Ors. v. State of Jharkhand & Ors. reported in 2010 Cr.L.R. (Supreme Court) P. 821 , this prosecution is totally malicious. The petitioner Dinesh Sharma is Mausa Sasaur of the complainant whereas the petitioner Rekha @ Poonam is Nanad of the complainant. They have falsely been implicated in this case though they have never resided with the complainant after marriage. Having regards the arguments advanced at bar and after having perused the order of both the Courts below, it appears to a case, which requires consideration. Admit. Issue notice. In the meantime, the proceedings in the trial Court qua the petitioners shall remain stayed. It is made clear that the proceedings as against other co-accused shall continue." 4. It is not denied that Smt. Pushpa Devi, petitioner in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1329/2011 is a Mausi as of the complainant. The Hon'ble Apex has taken note of this fact that in matrimonial cases, there is a tendency of involving a large number of accused even the distant relations. It is not denied that Smt. Pushpa Devi, petitioner in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1329/2011 is a Mausi as of the complainant. The Hon'ble Apex has taken note of this fact that in matrimonial cases, there is a tendency of involving a large number of accused even the distant relations. In Preeti Gupta's case, in paras 30 to 33 the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under: 30. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under Section 498-A I.P.C. 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 tranquillity 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 visualised 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. 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 scrutinised 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. 5. The counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon Geeta Mahrotra & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Am., 2012 Cr.L.R. (SC) 929 , wherein it was held that casual reference of the distant relations of the husband of the complainant is not sufficient to uphold the proceedings initiated at the instance of the aggrieved wife. 6. I have perused the F.I.R. It has been stated therein that the husband of the complainant was employed in the office of Dinesh Sharma and furthermore, the husband of the complainant used to obey Dinesh Sharma. Except this, no specific allegation have been levelled against the present petitioners. 7. The counsel for the complainant has placed reliance upon Nupur Tahvar (Dr.) (Mrs.) v. C.B.I. Delhi & Anr., 2012 Cr.L.R. (SC) 179 , to contend that at the very initial stage of the trial only prima facie allegations are to be taken into considerations. 8. There is no quarrel with the argument raised by the counsel for the complainant but this Court cannot ignore the ground realities and the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Preeti Gupta's case supra. The complainant has widened the net too far by inflating the number of accused. 8. There is no quarrel with the argument raised by the counsel for the complainant but this Court cannot ignore the ground realities and the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Preeti Gupta's case supra. The complainant has widened the net too far by inflating the number of accused. Hence, the present petitions are accepted and the impugned F.I.R. along with all subsequent proceedings is quashed, qua the petitioners only and the trial shall continue against the remaining co-accused.Petitions allowed. *******