JUDGMENT 1. - By this Criminal Misc. petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 18.1.2012 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar (hereinafter referred to as "revisional Court") whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioners have been dismissed while affirming the order dated 20.11.2007 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class Sadulshahar, District Sriganganagar (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') of summoning the petitioner for facing trial for the offences punishable under Section 498A & 323 I.P.C. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 2.3.2004 an FIR No. 35/2004 was lodged at the Police Station Lalgarh on the basis of a report submitted by the respondent No. 2 against the petitioners and Madan Lal, (husband of the respondent No. 2) for the offences punishable under Sections 406 & 498-A I.P.C. After investigation, the police filed charge sheet against Madan Lal for the offence punishable under Sections 406 and 498 A I.P.C. while concluding that there is no evidence of commission of alleged offences by the petitioners. The matter was proceeded for trial against the accused Madan Lal and during the course of trial, the statements of respondent No. 2 and her brother Raja Ram were recorded. After that an application was moved on behalf of Additional Prosecutor Prosecutor before the learned trial court under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning the petitioners for facing trial for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 323 I.P.C. and the said application was allowed by the learned trial court vide order dated 20.11.2007 and the petitioners were summoned through bailable warrant for facing trial for the offence punishable under Sections 498A and 323 I.P.C. along with the accused Madan Lal. 3. Being aggrieved with the order dated 20.11.2007, the petitioners preferred a revision petition before the revisional court, however, the said revision petition was dismissed by the revisional court vide order dated 18.1.2012. Hence, the petitioners have preferred this criminal misc. petition. 4. 3. Being aggrieved with the order dated 20.11.2007, the petitioners preferred a revision petition before the revisional court, however, the said revision petition was dismissed by the revisional court vide order dated 18.1.2012. Hence, the petitioners have preferred this criminal misc. petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that during the investigation of the case, the police had already concluded that the accused Madan Lal was living separately from the petitioners and it has come in the investigation that the petitioner No. 1 is living with petitioners No. 2 and 3 and the petitioner No. 4 is living along with her husband in a different village and the petitioners have not committed any offence as alleged by the respondent No. 2 in the FIR. The learned counsel for petitioner further stated that the petitioner No. 1 is about 82 years of age and is confined to bed and if at this stage she will be put to trial, it will be a great hardship for her and her family. The learned counsel for the petitioners has further stated that the learned Magistrate while exercising powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is required to act judiciously and not in mechanical manner. The power envisaged under Section 319 Cr.P.C. are discretionary in nature and it is always not binding upon the Magistrate to summon any person as and when any application is moved under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further urged that the respondent No. 2 has falsely implicated all the family members of her husband though the petitioners are not at all involved in any manner. It is further urged by learned counsel for the petitioners that from perusal of statements of respondent No. 2 (PW 1) and statement of his brother Raja Ram (PW 2), it is clear that only general allegations qua the petitioners have been levelled and no specific role is assigned to any of the petitioners. On the strength of above arguments, the learned counsel for petitioners has prayed that the order of summoning the petitioners passed by the learned trial court while exercising powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is not sustainable and deserves to be quashed. 5. On the strength of above arguments, the learned counsel for petitioners has prayed that the order of summoning the petitioners passed by the learned trial court while exercising powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is not sustainable and deserves to be quashed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also argued that in the present case, the respondent No. 2 and accused Madan Lal have entered into a compromise on 16.9.2006 wherein the accused Madan Lal agreed that he will keep the complainant and children with him and will also transfer share of 18 bighas and 15 biswas of agricultural land owned by him in favour of respondent No. 2 and her children subject to condition that the respondent No. 2 will withdraw the prosecution which she initiated against accused Madan Lal. It is stated that later on the respondent No. 2 has not withdrawn the prosecution and, therefore, the compromise entered into between the accused Madan Lal and respondent No. 2 on 16.9.2006 has not been executed. However, the respondent No. 2 has thereafter filed a complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Pilibanga against the accused Madan Lal for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 120B, 452, 354, 447, 147, 148 and 149 of the I.P.C. while alleging that despite a compromise entered into between her and the accused Madan Lal, he had not transferred the agricultural land in favour of her as per the compromise. On the said complaint, the police registered an FIR No. 235/2010 and after investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 I.P.C. 6. Against the said action of the police, the accused Madan Lal had approached this Court by way of filing criminal misc. petition No. 1664/2010 and this Court vide judgment dated 19.2.2013 has quashed the proceedings of the criminal case No. 406/2010 against the petitioners in respect of FIR No. 235/2010. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the respondent No. 2 is having tendency of levelling false allegations against her in-laws and such practice of involving in-laws in false case is deprecated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Kans Raj v. State of Punjab and ors. (2000) 5 SCC 207 and on the strength of this, the learned counsel for petitioners has prayed for quashing the impugned orders. 7. (2000) 5 SCC 207 and on the strength of this, the learned counsel for petitioners has prayed for quashing the impugned orders. 7. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel for the complainant has argued that while invoking powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. the learned trial court is not required to go into the details of the accusation and was only required to see whether any prima facie case in respect of the alleged offence is made out against the persons or not. In the present case, from the material available on record and from the statements of respondent No. 2 Smt. Krisha (PW 1) and Shri Raja Ram (PW 2) it is clear that a prima facie case is made out against the petitioners for the alleged offences and, therefore, no case for interference is made out. 8. This Court has considered the rival submissions and also perused the material available on record. 9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Krishnappa v. State of Karnataka - (2004) 7 SCC 792 has held as under:- "6. It has been repeatedly held that the power to summon an accused is an extraordinary power conferred on the court and should be used very sparingly and only if compelling reasons exist for taking cognizance against the other person against whom action has not been taken. ........ ........ 9. In Michael Machado v Central Bureau of Investigation, (2000) 3 SCC 262 , construing the words "the court may proceed against such person" in Section 319 Cr.P.C., this Court held that the power is discretionary and should be exercised only to achieve criminal justice and that the court should not turn against another person whenever it comes across evidence connecting that other person also with the offence. This Court further held that a judicial exercise is called for, keeping a conspectus of the case, including the stage at which the trial has proceeded and the quantum of evidence collected till then, and also the amount of time which the court had spent for collecting such evidence. The court, while examining an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., has also to bear in mind that there is no compelling duty on the court to proceed against other persons. The court, while examining an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., has also to bear in mind that there is no compelling duty on the court to proceed against other persons. In nutshell, it means that for exercise of discretion under Section 319 Cr.P.C, all relevant factors, including the one noticed above, have to be kept in view and an order is not required to be made mechanically merely on the ground that some evidence had come on record implicating the person sought to be added as an accused." 10. The Hon'ble Apex Court, while relying upon the decision rendered in Krishnappa's case (supra), has held in case of Kavuluri Vivekananda Reddy v. State of A.P. reported in 2005(12) SCC 432 that on the basis of general statements against any person, the trial court should not summon any person as the powers provided under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is required to be used sparingly and Court should exercise its discretion only to achieve criminal justice and should not turn against another plaintiff whereupon it comes across evidence connecting that other person also with the offence. 11. Now in the light of above decisions, this Court has to examine the material available on record on the basis of which the learned trial court had summoned the accused while exercising the powers under Section 319 cr.P.C. The respondent No. 2 Krisha Devi in her statement before the Court has made a very general statement that her mother-in-law Rukma Devi, brother-in-law Naresh Kumar and sister-in-law Kamla has demanded motor cycle and asked her that she will not remain happy in that house. No specific date, time and place where such demand was made on behalf of the petitioners No. 1, 2 and 4 have been specified. A very bald allegation against the petitioner Sumitra Devi that she also assaulted her is made in the statement. Similarly Shri Raja Ram brother of the respondent No. 2 has also made general allegations without any specification in his statement recorded before the learned trial court. On the basis of such general accusation, the trial court has erred in summoning the petitioners while exercising powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. It is also not out of subject to mention here that the respondent No. 2 has not levelled any specific allegation against the petitioners in the FIR or during the course of investigation of the case. On the basis of such general accusation, the trial court has erred in summoning the petitioners while exercising powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. It is also not out of subject to mention here that the respondent No. 2 has not levelled any specific allegation against the petitioners in the FIR or during the course of investigation of the case. When the police has filed negative final report while concluding that no offence has been committed by the petitioners, the respondent No. 2 has not filed any protest petition for taking cognizance against the petitioners. At one point of time she entered into a compromise with the accused Madan Lal on 16.9.2006 but later on had not acted upon the said compromise. The tendency of implicating the relatives has been taken into consideration by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Priti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand - (2010) 7 SCC 667 has observed that:- "32. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under section 498-A IPC 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. ...... ...... 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 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 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." The net result of above discussion is that the order passed by the learned trial court dated 20.11.2007 summoning the petitioners for facing trial for the offences under Sections 498A and 323 I.P.C. cannot be sustained and deserves to be quashed. There is no specific allegation of the respondent No. 2 against the petitioner in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and statements recorded by the court during the course of trial.Accordingly, this criminal misc. petition filed by the petitioners under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed and the impugned orders dated 20.11.2007 and 18.1.2012 are hereby quashed.Petition allowed. *******