JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ramesh Sinha, J.—Heard Smt Kamla Singh, holding brief of Sri Vijay Shanker Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The applicants, through the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to quash the proceeding in Complaint Case No. 1282 of 2011, under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P.Act, P.S. Haldharpur, district Mau pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Mau. 3. As per office report dated 4.2.2013, it has been reported that the notice issued to opposite party No. 2 has been received back after unserved as she refused to receive the notice. Hence the notice to her about the present case is deemed to be sufficient. 4. The prosecution case as stated in the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C by Smt. Reshma Bano that her marriage was solemnised on 19.4.2009 with Zubair Ahmad in accordance with Islamic rituals at Azamgarh. In the marriage, certain gifts were given by her father according to his resources. The wife performed her matrimonial obligations but after the marriage when the complainant went to her in-laws house, her in-laws i.e. mother-in-law Sageera, Khushnuma Khatoon, Shabnam Khatoon daughters of late Jainuddin and the two Jethani’s namely Guddi and Parveen, R/o Gojha Devkali, P.S. Bubarakpur and Nandoi Asaf Khan, S/o Shabbir, R/o Nava Sarai, P.S. Gosi, district Mau started harassing the complainant for bringing less dowry from her house and further stated that in dowry if motorcycle and Rs. 50,000/- is not brought by her, then she will not be allowed to live at her in-laws place. The complainant told about poverty of her parents to meet the demand and she informed about the said harassment for want of dowry to her parents but they consoled her by saying that everything will be in order. The harassment of the in-laws by the complainant increased day by day and she was beaten very often and was not given food. The complainant at several occasions had gone to her parents house and thereafter used to return to her in-laws place but the behaviour of the in-laws towards her was not good and their harassment was mounting regularly. After the festival of Eid, the husband Zubair Ahmad and her Jethani and Nanad had ousted her after beating her and took away all her articles. After the festival of Eid, the husband Zubair Ahmad and her Jethani and Nanad had ousted her after beating her and took away all her articles. Somehow, the complainant reached her parents house and narrated all the story of harassment to them, some times during her stay at her parents house there were talks for settling the issue but the in-laws were adamant to their demand for motorcycle and Rs. 50,000/- from the parents of the complainant and they were not ready to keep her. After 15 days, she had gone with her father to her in-laws house, then all of them started assaulting her and she was threatened for her life and property. She and her father managed to come back and informed the Police about the incident but her FIR was not lodged against the accused persons. On 20.5.2011, she sent on information to Superintendent of Police informing about the incident by registered post. 5. When the FIR of the complainant was not lodged, then she moved application on 5.6.2011 before the C.J.M., Mau for directing the concerned officer of the Police Station for registering an FIR against the accused persons and get the case investigated. The learned Magistrate treated the said application as complaint and directed that the matter be registered as complaint case. The statement of complainant Reshma Bano was recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and her witness Mohd. Ayub and Rafi Ullah under Section 202 Cr.P.C respectively. On 2.6.2012, the learned Magistrate finding a prima facie offence disclosed against the co-accused persons including applicants summoned them for trial under Section 498-A, 323, 506 and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. 6. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the marriage between the Zubair Ahmad who is the brother of the applicant No. 1 and complainant Reshma Bano was solemnized on 19.4.2009. The applicant No. 1 Khusnuma Khatoon and applicant No. 2 Asif Khan are the sister-in-law and brother-in-law whereas applicant No. 3 Shabnam Khatoon is also married sister-in-law of complainant and are living separately with their husbands. It is submitted that the applicant No. 1 Khushnuma Khatoon was married with applicant No. 2 Asif Khan in the year 1998 and they are having two children namely Mohd. It is submitted that the applicant No. 1 Khushnuma Khatoon was married with applicant No. 2 Asif Khan in the year 1998 and they are having two children namely Mohd. Arshan and Falak Khatoon who are 11 years and 8 years respectively Applicant No. 3 Shabnam was married with Anis Khan 20 years ago and they are having a minor son aged about 12 years. The applicant No. 1 is residing separately from her brother who is married to complainant in district Mau. Similarly applicant No. 3 is also living separately and they have also filed ration card as documentary proof of separate living. 7. It is further contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the application 156(3) Cr.P.C, which was treated as complaint by the Magistrate as well as the statement of the complainant and it’s witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C, the allegations which have been levelled against the applicant are general and vague in nature and no specific allegations have been levelled against them alongwith other co-accused persons who are the family members of the husband of complaint/opposite party No. 2. The complainant due to some dispute with her husband has left her house and went to her parents house and the applicants have no concern with their disputes. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, 2010 (3) SCC (Cr.) 473 and Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P., 2012 (10) ADJ 464 and has submitted that the the prosecution of the applicants is malicious and misuse of process of law and no offence whatsoever is made out against the applicants. She has placed reliance of the following paragraphs of the judgment of Geeta Mehrotra Case (Supra) : 17. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in this matter had been pleased to hold that the bald allegations made against the sister in law by the complainant appeared to suggest the anxiety of the informant to rope in as many of the husband’s relatives as possible. It was held that neither the FIR nor the charge-sheet furnished the legal basis for the magistrate to take cognizance of the offences alleged against the appellants. It was held that neither the FIR nor the charge-sheet furnished the legal basis for the magistrate to take cognizance of the offences alleged against the appellants. The learned Judges were pleased to hold that looking to the allegations in the FIR and the contents of the charge-sheet, none of the alleged offences under Sections 498 A, 406 and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act were made against the married sister of the complainant’s husband who was undisputedly not living with the family of the complainant’s husband. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court were pleased to hold that the High Court ought not to have relegated the sister in law to the ordeal of trial. Accordingly, the proceedings against the appellants were quashed and the appeal was allowed. 19.Coming to the facts of this case, when the contents of the FIR is perused, it is apparent that there are no allegations against Kumari Geeta Mehrotra and Ramji Mehrotra except casual reference of their names who have been included in the FIR but mere casual reference of the names of the family members in a matrimonial dispute without allegation of active involvement in the matter would not justify taking cognisance against them overlooking the fact borne out of experience that there is a tendency to involve the entire family members of the household in the domestic quarrel taking place in a matrimonial dispute specially if it happens soon after the wedding. 20. It would be relevant at this stage to take note of an apt observation of this Court recorded in the matter of G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad and others, (2000) 3 SCC 693 , wherein also in a matrimonial dispute, this Court had held that the High Court should have quashed the complaint arising out of a matrimonial dispute wherein all family members had been roped into the matrimonial litigation which was quashed and set aside. Their Lordships observed therein with which we entirely agree that: “there has been an outburst of matrimonial dispute in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. Their Lordships observed therein with which we entirely agree that: “there has been an outburst of matrimonial dispute in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate the disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a Court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their “young” days in chasing their cases in different Courts.” The view taken by the judges in this matter was that the Courts would not encourage such disputes. 21. In yet another case in the matter of B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another, AIR 2003 SC 1386 , it was observed that there is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XXA containing Section 498A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498A was added with a view to punish the husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. But if the proceedings are initiated by the wife under Section 498A against the husband and his relatives and subsequently she has settled her disputes with her husband and his relatives and the wife and husband agreed for mutual divorce, refusal to exercise inherent powers by the High Court would not be proper as it would prevent woman from settling earlier. Thus for the purpose of securing the ends of justice quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. It would however be a different matter depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether to exercise or not to exercise such a power. 24. Thus for the purpose of securing the ends of justice quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. It would however be a different matter depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether to exercise or not to exercise such a power. 24. However, we deem it appropriate to add by way of caution that we may not be misunderstood so as to infer that even if there are allegation of overt act indicating the complicity of the members of the family named in the FIR in a given case, cognisance would be unjustified but what we wish to emphasise by highlighting is that, if the FIR as it stands does not disclose specific allegation against accused more so against the co-accused specially in a matter arising out of matrimonial bickering, it would be clear abuse of the legal and judicial process to mechanically send the named accused in the FIR to undergo the trial unless of course the FIR discloses specific allegations which would persuade the Court to take cognisance of the offence alleged against the relatives of the main accused who are prima facie not found to have indulged in physical and mental torture of the complainant-wife. It is the well-settled principle laid down in cases too numerous to mention, that if the FIR did not disclose the commission of an offence, the Court would be justified in quashing the proceedings preventing the abuse of the process of law. Simultaneously, the Courts are expected to adopt a cautious approach in matters of quashing specially in cases of matrimonial dispute whether the FIR in fact discloses commission of an offence by the relatives of the principal accused or the FIR prima facie discloses a case of over-implication by involving the entire family of the accused at the instance of the complainant, who is out to settle her scores arising out of the teething problem or skirmish of domestic bickering while settling down in her new matrimonial surrounding. 9. Learned AGA has tried to justify the summoning order passed by the learned Magistrate but could not point out any specific allegations against the applicants. 10. Considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 9. Learned AGA has tried to justify the summoning order passed by the learned Magistrate but could not point out any specific allegations against the applicants. 10. Considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. From the perusal of the complaint and the statement of the complainant and it’s witnesses recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., it is apparent that only general allegations have been levelled against the applicants who married sisters and brother-in-law of the husband Zubair Ahmed. The applicants are living separately from the husband of opposite party No. 2 which is evident from the documents annexed with the present application. The said fact also finds mention in para Nos. 5 and 6 of the affidavit of the present application which is unrebutted by the opposite party No. 2 has also not appeared before this Court to contest the matter inspite of the service of notice of the application. The propositions of law laid down in the case of Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand (Supra) and Smt. Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P. (Supra) is fully applicable in the instant case as the applicants who are sister-in-laws and brother-in-law of the complainant have been simply dragged in the present case as they are family members of the husband Zubair Ahmed excepting bald allegations against them in the complaint and in the statement of the complainant and her witnesses there is nothing on record which may show any overt act on their part subjecting the complainant to cruelty to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. Thus, it is a fit case for exercise of inherent power of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of the proceedings against the applicants. In this view of the matter, so far as applicants Khusnuma Khatoon, Ashif Khan and Shabnam Khatoon is concerned, the proceedings of the Complaint Case No. 1282 of 2011, under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P.Act, P.S. Haldharpur, district Mau pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Mau is hereby quashed and the petition is allowed. ——————