Judgment : Tarun Kumar Gupta, J. The petitioners have filed this application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as the Code) praying for quashing the proceedings of G. R. Case No.704 of 2012 under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bidhannagar, North 24 Parganas. It is the case of the petitioners that O. P. No.2 Indrani Majumder being wife of Nabarun Chakraborty lodged a false complaint against her husband and other in-laws alleging cruelty upon and misbehaviour with her. Present petitioners are married sister-in-law (husband’s sister) and her husband. The petitioners served notice upon O. P. No.1 State as well as upon O. P. No.2 complainant. However, in spite of notice none appeared to represent O. P. No.2 defacto complainant Indrani Majumder. Debasish Roy appearing for the petitioners submits that the present petitioners being married sister-in-law and her husband were falsely implicated in said criminal case. According to him, present petitioners did not reside in the matrimonial home of the defacto complainant but they were tagged in the complaint just being relations of her husband. He further submits that the allegations made in the complaint did not disclose commission of any offence under Section 498 A I. P. C. by the present petitioners. According to him, further continuation of this criminal proceeding against the present petitioners will amount to be an abuse of process of the court and hence the same should be quashed. In support of his contention he has referred case laws reported in 2005 SCC (Cri) 735 (Ramesh and others vs. State of T. N.), (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 473 (Preeti Gupta and another vs. State of Jharkhand and another), (2010) 2 C Cr. LR (SC) 75 (Bhaskar Lal Sharma & Another vs. Monica) and (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 120 (Geeta Mehrotra and another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another). Mr. Keshri appearing for the O. P. State submits by producing case diary that during investigation I. O. examined witnesses and seized relevant documents and that a date has already been fixed for consideration for framing of charge and that at this stage it will not be advisable to quash the criminal proceeding under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 482 Cr. Section 482 Cr. P. C. can be resorted to at any stage if it can be shown that further continuation of any criminal proceeding will amount to abuse of the process of the court. The power under Section 482 Cr. P. C. is very wide and so the court has to impose self-restraint at the time of exercising said power under Section 482 Cr. P. C. One of the basic principle is that if the allegations made in the FIR are accepted on their face value, but still the same did not disclose the offence alleged then the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding under Section 482 Cr. P. C. I have perused the written complaint of the defacto complainant as well as further statements of the defacto complainant recorded under Section 161 Cr. P. C. It appears that she made various allegations of subjecting her to humiliation, insults and physical torture mainly by her parents-in-law and her husband. She also made specific allegation of forcibly taking away her jewellery, and her ‘stridhan’ properties by her parents-in-law. The only allegation against the petitioner sister-in-law is that she sometimes joined defacto complainant’s parents-in-law in the act of insulting the housewife on trivial issues and did not extend her helping hand to the poor defacto complainant in need. It was also alleged that brother-in-law Sandipan Ganguly (petitioner No.2) also sometimes joined with her in the matter of humiliating and teasing the victim housewife. In terms of Section 498 A I. P. C. whoever being the husband or relatives of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be liable for committing offence under said provision. In said Section the cruelty was described as any willful conduct of such a nature as was 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. The cruelty was also described as harassment of the woman where such harassment was with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property etc. In this connection it should be borne in mind that a petition of complaint alleging torture upon the housewife by her husband and other in-laws is usually written by the victim housewife for presentation to the police station. In this connection it should be borne in mind that a petition of complaint alleging torture upon the housewife by her husband and other in-laws is usually written by the victim housewife for presentation to the police station. A person even if highly educated but having no knowledge of law, is not expected to draft a complaint so as to disclose all the ingredients of Section 498A I. P. C. in said compliant. At the time of examining said complaint the court has to see the totality of the allegations regarding harassment to form an opinion as to whether those harassments as made out in the complaint would likely to drive the victim housewife to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the victim lady. This being a mixed question of law and fact the court will not usually take it up for consideration at the time of hearing of the application praying for quashing of the criminal proceeding under Section 498A I. P. C. under Section 482 Cr. P. C. However, if the allegations made in the FIR as well as materials collected during investigation go to show that those allegations even if accepted on their face value will not drive the victim being a reasonable person to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the lady, then this court can very well exercise its inherent power under Section 482 Cr. P. C. If the allegations made in the complaint are taken on their face value it reveals at the most that the petitioners being sister-in-law and husband of sister-in-law made insulting and derogatory remarks against the defacto complainant housewife on some occasions. But said acts did not constitute offence under Section 498 A I. P. C. In the statements of the defacto complainant housewife recorded under Section 161 Cr. P. C. there was even no allegation against the present petitioner, though there were specific allegations against parents-in-law and husband. But said acts did not constitute offence under Section 498 A I. P. C. In the statements of the defacto complainant housewife recorded under Section 161 Cr. P. C. there was even no allegation against the present petitioner, though there were specific allegations against parents-in-law and husband. In the case laws as referred by the learned counsels of the petitioners it was held that the benevolent provisions of Section 498 A I. P. C. which were brought into statute book to protect the harassment and cruelty meted upon housewives by her husband and other in-laws, are being grossly misused in many cases by filing false complaints on trivial issues. It was further held that a criminal case based on such complaint should be nipped at the bud. Accordingly, I am of opinion that the present criminal proceeding should not be permitted to proceed so far as present two petitioners being married sister-in-law and her husband are concerned. Accordingly, the revisional application is allowed. The criminal proceeding being G. R. Case No.704 of 2012 under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code presently pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bidhannagar, North 24 Parganas is hereby quashed so far as present petitioners are concerned. However, the case may proceed according to law against other accused persons of said case. The case diary be returned to the learned lawyer of the O. P. State. Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment be supplied to the learned counsels of the parties, if applied for.