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 2.9.2003 passed in Complaint Case No.551© of 2003 by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Nalanda at Biharsharif by which he has taken cognizance against the petitioners for offences under Sections 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. It appears from the complaint petition that the complainant, Sunanda Bharti, was married with Harendra Prasad, who is not the petitioner on 20.3.2002 according to Hindu rites. At the time of marriage the parents of the complainant gave substantial gifts such as colour T.V., Freeze, Rs. 45,000/- for the purposes of purchasing of motorcycle through Bank Draft in the name of Raj Narayan Das and also paid cash of Rs.1,00,000/- to Ram Eqwal Ram who died during pendency of this case. It has been alleged that after the marriage when the complainant went to in-laws house at Kolkota the husband and father-in-law demanded an Ambassador Car and also money in cash only then opposite party no.2 would be allowed back to Naihar. It has further been alleged that when the brother of the complainant, namely, Rishi Ranjan had gone to Kolkatta he was also assaulted by the accused persons. When the complainant returned to her parents house she narrated whole story including the incident of assault to her brother. It has further been alleged, her husband, father-in-law, elder brother of the husband, younger brother of the husband and husband of her sister-in-law of husband used to visit her parents house from time to time and always repeated the demand of the aforesaid Car which was not accepted by her father showing his financial constrain. Allegation has been made in the complaint petition that the complainant used to be assaulted by the accused persons including by her husband Harendra Prasad and he used to hurl threat for the second marriage. In the meantime, father of opposite party no.2 died on 22.5.2002, the husband , father-in-law, elder sister of the husband, younger brother of the husband and sisters husband came to attend the Sharadh, even at that odd time also they repeated the demand of Ambassador Car, in the event of refusal the husband would go for second marriage. In the meantime, father of opposite party no.2 died on 22.5.2002, the husband , father-in-law, elder sister of the husband, younger brother of the husband and sisters husband came to attend the Sharadh, even at that odd time also they repeated the demand of Ambassador Car, in the event of refusal the husband would go for second marriage. It has further been alleged that the husband of the complainant used to visit her Naihar from time to time, always exerted pressure for Ambassador car. It has further been alleged, on 18.6.2003 the husband, husband’s younger sister and brother-in-law of the husband and his mother had come to parents house and they have misbehaved. When request was made by relatives of opposite party no.2 for the second marriage (Gauna) of the complainant they threaten for severance of marriage. It has further been stated, when the brother of the complainant did not find chance of restoration of relationship asked the accused persons for return of jewellary, cash, T.V., Freeze and moter-cycle which was refused by them. On the basis of the solemn affirmation including the evidence of witnesses the court below took cognizance under Sections 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner nos. 1 and 2 have already died so their names should be deleted from the category of the petitioners. Accordingly the names of petitioner nos. 1 and 2 are deleted. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits, in the complaint case vague statement has been made against the petitioners. He further submits that petitioner nos. 3, 5 and 6 are elder brothers whereas petitioner nos. 4 and 7 are Bhabhi of the husband. It has been submitted that no specific allegation has been made against them rather general and omnibus allegation has been made against them without any date and event. It has further been submitted that husband and father-in-law, mother-in-law could have been made accused in this case but without any reason all the family members who have nothing to do with the marriage of opposite party no.2 and with her husband have been roped in the present case without having any specific and distinct allegation leveled against them save and except general and omnibus allegation. He made a prayer to quash the order of cognizance as interest of opposite party no.2 would be served to continue the case against her husband 2. 6. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that all the accused persons are members of the joint Hindu family and they are living in a common house and share every thing jointly. It has further been submitted that all the accused persons have played active role in the harassment of the complainant by way of demanding the Ambassador car even at her Naiher. He further submits that it will not be the ends of justice to interfere with the order of cognizance which has taken against the petitioners. 7. Having considered the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties, on perusal of the complaint petition it does not appear that any specific overt act has been leveled against them rather general and omnibus allegations have been made in the complaint petition that too appears to be improbable. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Preeti Gupta and another vs. State of Jharkhand and another, reported in A.I.R. 2010 SC 3363 while passing the order has opined that it is a matter of common knowledge that exaggerated version of the incident are reflected in a large number of complainants. The tendency has grown to implicate all the family members having no any intimate relationship either with the complainant or husband of the complainant. It will be apt to quote paragraph nos. 34 and 35 of the aid Judgment: – “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 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 allegations of the complainant are required to be scrutinised with great care and circumspection.” 9. In the recent judgment also the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra and another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, reported in 2013 (1) PLJR (SC)10 where in paragraph nos. 25 and 27 the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated the same view and has submitted that unless there have been specific allegation against the family members it will an abuse of the process of the court to ask all the family members to face incarceration of the criminal proceeding. In paragraph 27 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held, merely by leveling a general allegation that they were also involved in physical and mental torture without mentioning even a single incident against them the proceeding against them would not be sustainable. 10. As stated hereinabove the Hon’ble Supreme Court has taken a view that only in a case of specific allegation in connection with brother and sister the relatives of the husband can be asked to face the criminal trial that too in a matrimonial dispute. 11. In this case also the position is by and large same. No specific allegation has been made against the accused persons save and except some general and omnibus allegations have been made against all the persons demanding an ambassador car. Having considered the facts, circumstances and law involved in the present case this Court is of the view that the order of cognizance dated 2.9.2003 is fit to be quashed and according this application is allowed so far as it relates to the petitioners. However, the proceeding against the husband will continue and the court below will expedite the trial.