JUDGMENT : Shri Rajiv Sharma with Shri V. Sunderam, Advocates for the petitioners. Shri P. S. Raghuvanshi, PL for the respondent/State. Shri Brajesh Sharma, Advocate for respondent No. 2. This petition has been filed under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the FIR, charge-sheet and the proceedings pending before the JMFC, Gwalior in Case No. 4603/2011. 2. The facts giving rise to this petition are that marriage of the petitioner No. 1 was solemnized with respondent No. 2 on 17-4-2009 as per Hindu Rituals. After marriage respondent No. 2 lived with petitioner No. 1 for few days and was not interested to live in joint family and left house of petitioners in May, 2009 and then living separately. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 made a complaint on 26-9-2009 at Mahila Police Station, Gwalior against the petitioners alleging that petitioners are harassing her on account of demand of dowry. On the basis of the complaint conciliation proceedings were started at Mahila Police Station, where parties were called on 1-10-2009. Petitioner No. 1 expressed his desire to live with respondent No. 2, and if respondent No. 2 is not interested to live with him and wants divorce he is willing to return all her Stridhan. It is further stated that on 10-10-2009 all articles given by father of respondent No. 2 was deposited with Mahila Thana and also agreed to return motor cycle and cash of Rs. 10,000/-. Thereafter, petitioner No. 1 has filed a petition under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court, Gwalior, which was registered as Case No. 560-A/2009 HMA. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 filed a complaint with SP, Gwalior against the petitioners alleging commission of cruelty in connection with demand of dowry. However, after inquiry it was found that petitioners No. 4 to 11 are residing separately. Petitioner No. 10 Ballo is ill and his treatment is going on. It was also stated that complainant along with her father has compromised the dispute by filing an affidavit that they do not want to take further action and the motor cycle and other articles have also been received by the complainant Poonam. 3. It is submitted that the allegations regarding demand of dowry and commission of cruelty is false. It was also stated that complainant along with her father has compromised the dispute by filing an affidavit that they do not want to take further action and the motor cycle and other articles have also been received by the complainant Poonam. 3. It is submitted that the allegations regarding demand of dowry and commission of cruelty is false. The conciliation proceedings which took place in the Paramarsh Kendra it is evident that matter has already resolved in 2009, therefore, lodging of the report on 1-4-2010 is unwarranted. It is further submitted that even after lodging of FIR respondent No. 2 entered into an agreement on 8-6-2010 and admitted to have received all her Stridhan and agreed to withdraw all cases and complaints. It is further submitted that report itself reveals that no offence has been committed by the petitioners, therefore, FIR No. 40/2010 as well as the charge-sheet and proceedings pending before JMFC, Gwalior be quashed. 4. Learned Panel Lawyer appearing for respondent/State has submitted that the cruelty has been committed by the petitioners in connection with demand of dowry, therefore, the report was lodged by the complainant and there is no ground for quashing the said proceedings. 5. From perusal of the FIR lodged by complainant Poonam Batham, it appears that she has alleged that her marriage took place on 17-4-2009. After marriage her husband, three Jeths, Jethanis, mother-in-law, father-in-law, Nanad and uncle-in-law started demanding cash of Rs. 50,000/-, TV and fridge. They have not provided her meal and she was physically harassed. Her husband used to beat her with fists and kicks. 6. From perusal of the order sheet dated 1-9-2009 of the Paramarsh Kendra, it appears that the complainant appeared along with her parents and complained that her in-laws harass her on account of dowry, therefore, she does not want to reside with husband and she wants divorce and get back her Stridhan. Husband of the complainant was also present, who expressed that he wants to keep his wife but she does not want to live with him and he is ready to return her Stridhan. Order sheet dated 10-10-2009 disclose that complainant has received motor cycle and cash of Rs. 10,000/- and petitioner was agreed to give the same on 10-11-2009. Husband of the complainant was also present, who expressed that he wants to keep his wife but she does not want to live with him and he is ready to return her Stridhan. Order sheet dated 10-10-2009 disclose that complainant has received motor cycle and cash of Rs. 10,000/- and petitioner was agreed to give the same on 10-11-2009. On 10-11-2009 petitioner stated that he is ready to handover the Stridhan but the complainant stated that after filing of the divorce petition remaining articles will be given. 7. Thereafter petitioner No. 1 Sonu has filed petition under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act on 17-11-2009 in the Family Court, Gwalior. The agreement dated 8-6-2010 reveals that it has been executed between complainant Poonam and petitioner No. 1 Sonu. As per the agreement it is mentioned that motor cycle and cash of Rs. 50,000/- has been deposited in the Police Paramarsh Kendra, which can be taken after withdrawal of the dowry case and case under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Complainant has also given her affidavit acknowledging that the petitioner No. 1 Sonu has deposited the dowry articles and cash of Rs. 50,000/- along with motor cycle, which can be received after closure of the case. 8. It is pertinent to mention that complainant has lodged the report on 1-4-2010 i.e. after filing of the petition under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act by the husband. From the aforesaid it appears that the complainant has lodged the report roping eleven persons, which includes not only her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, three Jeths, three Jethanis, Nanad and Uncle-in-law, which shows that report has been lodged with an ulterior motive to harass the whole family. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Preeti Gupta and another vs. State of Jharkhand and another, reported in (2010) 7 SCC 667 observed as under :- "30. 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. "31. The Courts are receiving a large number of cases emanating from section 498-A of the Penal Code which reads as under.:- "498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty. This clearly demonstrates discontent and unrest in the family life of a large number of people of the society. "31. The Courts are receiving a large number of cases emanating from section 498-A of the 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 purpose 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. 32. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under section 498-A Indian Penal Code 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 is also a matter of serious concern. 33. The learned members of the Bar have enormous social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fibre 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. 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 fibre, 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." 9. In the matter of Geeta Mehrotra and another vs. State of U. P. and another, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 741 again the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that merely by making a general allegation that they were also involved in physical and mental torture of respondent No. 2 complainant without mentioning even a single incident against them as also the fact as to how they could be motivated to demand dowry when they are only related as brother and sister of the complainant's husband they cannot be prosecuted . 10. Where large number of family members were included in FIR by merely mentioning their names, cognizance of the matter taken against them could not be held to be justified. 11. From the FIR lodged by the complainant in this case I find that general allegations have been made regarding demand of cash of Rs. 50,000/-, Fridge and TV. No specific allegation has been levelled against the specific relative. Similarly, no specific dates have been mentioned when complainant was beaten by fists and kicks. The conduct of the complainant before lodging the FIR discloses that report has been lodged with a view to harass the petitioners. 12. The Hon'ble Apex Court has examined the scope of powers under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code in considerable time in the matter of Madhu Limaye vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 1978 SC 47 , as under :- "29. The inherent power is to be used only in cases where there is an abuse of the process of the Court or where interference is absolutely necessary for securing the ends of justice. The inherent power must be exercised very sparingly as cases which require interference would be few and far between. The inherent power is to be used only in cases where there is an abuse of the process of the Court or where interference is absolutely necessary for securing the ends of justice. The inherent power must be exercised very sparingly as cases which require interference would be few and far between. The most common case where inherent jurisdiction is generally exercised is where criminal proceedings are required to be quashed because they are initiated illegally, vexatiously or without jurisdiction. Most of the cases set out herein above fall in this category. It must be remembered that the inherent power is not be restored to if there is a specific provision in the Code or any other enactment for redress of the grievance of the aggrieved party. This power should not be exercised against an express bar of law engrafted in any other provision of the Criminal Procedure Code. This power cannot be exercised as against an express bar in some other enactment." 13. In view of the aforesaid analysis the continuance of proceedings against the petitioners would amount to an abuse of process of the Court, therefore, petition deserves to be allowed. Consequently, FIR No. 40/2010 dated 1-4-2010 of Mahila Police Station, Padav as well as charge-sheet and the proceedings of Cr. Case No. 4603/2011 pending before JMFC, Gwalior is hereby quashed. Petition is disposed of accordingly.