Surendra Vikram Singh Rathore, J.;— 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record. 2. With the consent of the parties, this application is being disposed of finally at this stage. 3. By means of the instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the applicants have made following prayers:- "(i) Issue an order or directions for quashing the entire proceeding of the Criminal Case NO. 2543 of 2007, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 & 506 IPC and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act, police station Madiaon, district Lucknow pending before the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-V, Lucknow including the charge sheet No. 23 of 2007 dated 26.1.2007 and charge sheet no. 23A/2007 dated 14.4.2007. (ii) To issue an order or directions for quashing the impugned order of summoning dated 16.4.2007 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-V, Lucknow as contained in Annexure No. 1 to this petition." 4. In brief of facts of the case are that the Investigating Agency was set in motion by registration of F.I.R. lodged by Smt. Sangeeta Yadav wife of Sunil Kumar Yadav (applicant no. 6). Applicant no. 5 is the father in law, applicant no. 1 is the mother in law, applicants nos. 3 and 4 are the Devars and applicant no. 2 is the Devrani of complainant. As per the F.I.R., marriage of Sangeeta Yadav was solemnized with Sunil Kumar Yadav about 15-16 years ago. Afte the marriage, she was treated with cruelty in connection with the demand of dowry. The demand of dowry is alleged to have been made by all the accused persons. There was demand of one motorcycle and Rs. 1,00,000/- cash. Smt. Sangeeta Yadav informed her father regarding the demand but he expressed his inability to fulfill the same. There is general allegation that all the accused persons used to close her in a room and to torture her and also used to give threats of dire consequences. Smt. Sangeeta Yadav had two daughters and therefore, she was tolerating such cruel behaviour. Ultimately in the year 2006, she was turned out of her matrimonial home by the accused persons and she was living in another house of her husband in Madion. Smt. Sangeeta Yadav had two daughters and therefore, she was tolerating such cruel behaviour. Ultimately in the year 2006, she was turned out of her matrimonial home by the accused persons and she was living in another house of her husband in Madion. On 19.11.2006 at about 5:00 p.m., all the accused persons reached there and belaboured her and also forced her to sell the plot, which was given to her by her father at the time of marriage and to give the sale proceeds to the accused persons. The parents in law were exorting to kill her. Devar Vivek Kumar Yadav (applicant no. 3) poured kerosene oil on her. When the victim raised alarm, on her alarm several persons and also her father and brothers also reached there. But by that time, accused persons had run away. After completion of investigation, the police submitted charge sheet against all the six persons. On the basis of which, the learned Magistrate, took cognizance and passed the impugned order. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that no offence under the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 is made out as there was no demand of dowry from the father in law. It is further submitted that there are absolutely no allegation against Devrani Smt. Geeta Yadav, mother in law Smt. Saraswati Devi and also against Devar Arvind Kumar Yadav. It is further submitted that even if the version of F.I.R. is taken to be true on its face value, even then no offence can be said to have been made out against them. 6. Learned A.G.A. for the State submits that there is sufficient evidence against all the accused persons and there is no illegality in the impugned order. The allegations made in the F.I.R. were found to be correct during investigation. 7. In the F.I.R., the date of marriage has not been mentioned but it has come in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of her brother Pradeep Kumar Yadav that marriage was solemnized about 15-16 years ago. There is vague allegation of demand of dowry of Rs. 1,00,000/- and one motorcycle by the accused persons but this F.I.R. relates to the occurrence dated 29.11.2006, in which role of exhortation was assigned to the mother in law and a general allegation has been made against all the accused persons that they were belaboured the victim. There is vague allegation of demand of dowry of Rs. 1,00,000/- and one motorcycle by the accused persons but this F.I.R. relates to the occurrence dated 29.11.2006, in which role of exhortation was assigned to the mother in law and a general allegation has been made against all the accused persons that they were belaboured the victim. Specific role has been assigned to Devar Vivek Kumar Yadav (application no. 3) that he poured kerosene oil on her. During investigation, brother of the victim was examined and statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded, in which he stated that there was smell of kerosene oil from the clothes of Vivek Kumar Yadav and he was told by the persons assembled there that the victim was beaten by the members of her in-laws family. Specific names were not disclosed. Nowadays a general tendency has grown up that in every case of demand of dowry or in every case under Section 498-A or 304-B, all the members of family are implicated to harass the accused side. This tendency ultimately causes damage to the prosecution case because when involvement of the other persons is found false it also adversely affects the entire prosecution case. Therefore, it is the duty of the court to go through the allegations made in the F.I.R. and other material available and in case no specific role has been assigned to any other family member then the proceedings may be quashed. In the facts of this case, even if the allegations of the F.I.R. are taken to be true, even then no offence can be said to have been made out against some of the applicants. 8. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Ramesh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in [JT 2005 (3) SC 90] held 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 as 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. It was further observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that looking to the allegations in the FIR and the contents of the charge sheet none of the alleged offences under Section 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. In a recent judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra & Anr Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. reported in [JT 2012 (11) SC 46] has held in paragraph no. 26 as under:- "26. The High Court in our considered opinion appear to have missed that assuming the trial court had territorial jurisdiction, it was still left to be decided whether it was a fit case to send the appellants for trial when the F.I.R. failed to make out a prima facie case against them regarding the allegation of inflicting physical and mental torture to the complaint demanding dowry from the complainant. Since the Hgih Court had failed to consider all these aspects, this Court as already stated hereinbefore, could have remitted the matter to the High Court to consider whether a case was made out against the appellants to proceed against them. But as the contents of the FIR does not disclose specific allegation against the brother and sister of the complainant's husband except casual reference of their names, it would not be just to direct them to go through protracted procedure by remanding for consideration of the matter all over again by the High court and make the unmarried sister of the main accused and his elder brother to suffer the ordeal of a criminal case pending against them specially when the FIR does not disclose ingredients of offence under Sections 498A/323/504/506, IPC and Sections ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act." 9. Therefore, in view of the abovementioned factual and legal position, and keeping in view the fact that no specific role has been assigned to some of the accused applicants, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. deserves to be partly allowed. 10. Therefore, in view of the abovementioned factual and legal position, and keeping in view the fact that no specific role has been assigned to some of the accused applicants, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. deserves to be partly allowed. 10. The application under Section 482 Cr.C.P. is hereby partly allowed so far as it relates to mother-in-law Smt. Saraswati Devi (applicant no. 1), Devrani Smt. Geeta Yadav (applicant no. 2) and Devar Arvind Kumar Yadav (applicant no. 4). The proceedings against the aforesaid persons are hereby quashed. But so far as other accused persons are concerned, the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. stands dismissed and the trial court is directed to proceed further in accordance with law against the remaining accused. 11. It is informed to the Court by the learned counsel for the applicants that in compliance of the order of this Court, the applicants had deposited Rs. 5,000/- towards mediation proceedings. 12. Since, opposite party no. 2 had refused to enter into the mediation proceedings, therefore, the money so deposited by the applicants shall be refunded by the registry in accordance with rules. 13. It is made clear that the observation made by this Court in this case shall not be taken to be any finding and shall not affect the prosecution of other accused persons. The trial court is further directed to expedite the trial. _____________