ORDER K.B.K. Vasuki, J. 1. Both the Criminal Original Petitions are filed by A3 and A4 to quash the proceedings in CC. No. 3792/2012 pending on the file of the X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. The case in CC. 3792/2012 arising out of the complaint given by the second respondent is taken cognizance against the husband, parents-in-law and sister-in-law for the offences under sections 498A, 406, 420 IPC. The petitioners in both the Crl. OPs are mother-in-law/A3 and sister-in law/A4 of the second respondent. A1 by name Saravanan and the second respondent Dr. Pinki Vedavanam, who were doctors by profession, got married in 2003 and settled at United Kingdom and the second respondent gave birth to a female child in 2004. Due to difference and dispute arose between the husband and wife, A1 Saravanan approached the Foreign Court for divorce and the marriage was, by order dated 7.1.2010 resolved on the ground that the marriage was broken down irretrievably. Thereafter, the second respondent returned to India during January 2011. The complaint, arising out of which is the present two Crl. OPs was preferred on 22.11.2011 to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Anna Nagar, Chennai by the second respondent and the same was registered on 18.12.2012 as Cr. No. 11 of 2011 on the file of All Women Police Station, Chennai, for the offences under sections 498A, 406 and 420 IPC. After investigation, charge sheet was filed for the offences under sections 498A, 406, 420, 323 r/w 34 IPC and the same was taken cognizance for the offences under sections498A, 406 and 420 IPC in CC. No. 3792/2012. 2. The main allegations raised against A1-husband and A2 father-in-law both in the complaint as well as in the charge sheet are that the father-in-law demanded more amount by way of dowry and the husband had been, at the instance of the father-in-law, compelling the second respondent to hand over her entire salary and the husband both at abroad and during her visit at Chennai, used to abuse her and beat her and at the instance of the parents-in-law and sister-in-law, compelled to resign her job and the parents-in-law and sister-in-law encouraged A1-husband in beating his wife and A1 husband made her to part with Rs. 24 lakhs and thereafter, transferred it to his father's account to purchase a residential flat at Nolambur, Chennai and the same was later on transferred to the name of his mother etc. 3. As far as the mother-in-law and sister-in-law are concerned, they come forward with the present petitions for quashment of the proceedings mainly on the ground that the allegations raised against them in the complaint and charge sheet and in Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the witnesses are bald, vague, without any material particulars and belated, as such, the same are not sufficient enough to prima face make out any offence against them. It is further contended that the present complaint is a counter blast against the decree obtained by the husband against the wife. 4. Whereas, the relief is seriously opposed by the first respondent/IO and the second respondent/de facto complainant on the basis of the allegations raised in the complaint, Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the witnesses and the charge sheet. 5. Heard the rival submissions made on both sides. 6. As already stated above, the case is taken cognizance against the petitioners and others for the offences under sections 498A, 406, 420 IPC. The perusal of the charge sheet would reveal that the statement of the witnesses relied on by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences as mentioned above are that the second respondent/de facto complainant, her parents, her paternal uncle and IO. The facts made available herein would reveal that the present case is not the only case between the parties. The husband already initiated divorce proceedings before the concerned court at UK and obtained an order of divorce as early as on 7.1.2010. The de facto complainant/wife returned to India during January 2011 i.e., much after the divorce proceedings. Till date, the de facto complainant appears to have not taken any steps to get the decree of divorce being set aside. Be that as it may, the complaint, arising out of which is the present Crl. OPs, was preferred by the second respondent/de facto complainant on 28.11.2011 and the allegations made therein are relating to the incidents happened between 2003 and January 2010, both in India and in abroad. Most of the allegations raised against the husband relate to his alleged act of cruelty and harsh behavior at abroad. 7. OPs, was preferred by the second respondent/de facto complainant on 28.11.2011 and the allegations made therein are relating to the incidents happened between 2003 and January 2010, both in India and in abroad. Most of the allegations raised against the husband relate to his alleged act of cruelty and harsh behavior at abroad. 7. As far as the sister-in-law is concerned, the allegations raised against her relate to the occurrence allegedly happened during October 2007 at VOC Nagar house at Chennai. The complaint, section 161 Cr.P.C. statement and charge sheet proceeds as if the parents-in-law and sister-in-law supported A1/husband in beating the second respondent and they used abusive language against her. Except stating so, no other allegations are raised against the sister-in-law either in the complaint or Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the second respondent or charge sheet. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners, such allegations are vague, bald and without any material particulars and the same do not constitute the offences charged against her. 7.1. As far as the offence under section 498A IPC is concerned, the act complained of does not amount to any act of cruelty as defined under explanation (a) and (b) of Section 498A. It is not the case of the de facto complainant that the husband and in-laws particularly father-in-law, behaved in a bad manner at the instance of the sister-in-law. It is not explained either in the complaint or section 161 Cr.P.C. statement regarding the circumstances under which parents-in-law and sister-in-law supported the husband during October 2007 at VOC Nagar house. It is also not stated by the second respondent that by reason of any single act on the part of the sister-in-law the second respondent suffered any kind of mental or physical cruelty so as to attract the offence under section 498A IPC. 7.2. As far as the offences under sections 406 and 420 IPC are concerned, it is not the case of the de facto complainant that the sister-in-law made any misrepresentation to the second respondent so as to make her to part with huge amount and the sister-in-law in any manner was instrumental in transferring the amount to the account of the father-in-law for purchasing a flat at Nolambur initially in the husband's name and thereafter to transfer the same in the name of the mother-in-law. If that is so, none of the ingredients of the offences under section 406 or 420IPC is present in this case. In that event, this court has no hesitation to hold that the allegations raised in the complaint and section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the witnesses and the charge sheet do not constitute any of the offences against the sister-in-law and the case is taken cognizance against her without duly perusing the materials and is on total non application of mind, as such, the criminal proceedings, in the absence of any material much less sufficient material, for attracting the offences as alleged against the sister-in-law cannot be allowed to go on, failing which, it amounts to abuse of process of law and is likely to cause serious prejudice to the sister-in-law/A4 and the same is hence liable to be quashed against her/A4. 8. As far as the mother-in-law/A3 is concerned, the allegations raised against her are (i) parents of the second respondent were before the marriage, called to their house by A2 and A3, wherein, A2/father-in-law insisted the parents of the second respondent to deposit further sum of Rs. 50,000/- and accordingly, the amount was deposited in the name of the second respondent; (ii) parents-in-law and sister-in-law at the time of the couple's visit to Chennai during October 2007 at VOC house, abused her and supported A1 husband in beating her; (iii) parents-in-law, at the time of their stay in U.K. during September 2008, ill treated her and compelled her to resign her job, failing which, to agree for divorce and to close her bank account and to deposit the salary in the account of the husband and on her refusal to do so, abused her in filthy language and caused her mental agony; (iv) when the second respondent came home late one day, the husband questioned her and beat her, at that time, the parents-in-law did not stop him to do so, but insisted him to continue to do so and abused her in filthy language; and (v) husband purchased the flat at Nolambur in his name out of his funds obtained from the wife and after divorce, the same was transferred in the name of his mother, during March 2011 and both the husband and the parents-in-law had been living together in the same house. 8.1. 8.1. Regarding the first allegation for demanding more money, the same is, according to the de facto complainant made by the father-in-law and there is absolutely no allegation against the mother-in-law in joining the father-in-law in making such demand. Regarding the behavior of the parents-in-law during their stay in abroad, it is the case of the de facto complainant that they had been joining with the husband in using bad language against the de facto complainant. The same are, as rightly argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners, vague, bald and without any material particulars regarding the date etc. Further, the allegations do not contain the particulars of the abusive language used by the parents-in-law. It is also not the case of the de facto complainant that she suffered any mental cruelty, which was detrimental to her limb or life. It is nobody's case that she was meted out such ill treatment to meet any unlawful demand for property or valuable security. Whereas, it is general in nature against all the three and without any specific role attributed by the mother-in-law. Thus, the conduct of the mother-in-law complained of herein do not in my considered view, make out any case to constitute the offence under section 498A IPC. 8.2. As far as the charge levelled against the mother-in-law under sections 406 and 420 IPC are concerned, here again, the allegations raised do not disclose any conduct on her part in making false or misleading representation and any act of unlawful entrustment of the property by the de facto complainant to the mother-in-law and the conversion of the same in the name of mother-in-law for her own use. The allegations do proceed as if the husband asked her to part with the money to purchase a flat and the flat was purchased in his name and the same was thereafter transferred in the name of the mother-in-law. There is absolutely no allegation indicating any role played by the mother-in-law in this regard and in the absence of one such allegation, no ingredients of sections 406 and 420 IPC can be said to be made out against her, as such, the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the mother-in-law would amount to abuse of process of law and in order to secure the interest of justice, it is but necessary to quash the proceedings against the mother in law/A3 too. 9. 9. Here is the case, wherein the daughter-in-law/second respondent has come forward with the criminal complaint against the husband, parents-in-law and sister-in-law much after the dissolution of marriage by the concerned Jurisdictional Magistrate at Foreign Court at UK and the decree was obtained on 7.1.2010. The divorced wife visited India during January 2011 and the complaint was given only in November 2011. The alleged incidents as mentioned in the complaint do relate to the period much before the divorce. The de facto complainant has in addition to the present complaint, approached the General Medical Council raising similar allegations and the same after due enquiry appeared to be dropped as no further action warranted. The second respondent also preferred another complaint before the Protection officer, Domestic Violence Act, District Social Welfare office, Chennai, who, after enquiry filed Domestic Incident Report before the Jurisdictional Magistrate and the same was taken cognizance in CC. No. 1755/2012. The in-laws as well as the husband have already filed two separate petitions in Crl. OP Nos. 24082 and 28502 of 2012 to quash the proceedings initiated under the Domestic Violence Act before this Court and this court granted interim stay of all further proceedings. The father of the second respondent also filed a private complaint against the husband for bigamy and the same was, by order dated 10.12.2012 made in CMP. 155/2012 dismissed and the correctness of the same was challenged by way of Crl. RC. 89/2013. The conduct of the wife in not preferring any complaint in respect of the incidents happened much before the decree of divorce in 2007 and 2010 and her conduct in lodging the complaint much after her return to India and the vagueness with which the allegations are raised against the sister-in-law and mother-in-law would disclose her mala fide intention in roping the family members of the husband in the criminal prosecution. Further, the allegations against the mother-in-law and sister-in-law are more general in nature, vague and bereft of material particulars. 10. Further, the allegations against the mother-in-law and sister-in-law are more general in nature, vague and bereft of material particulars. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also cited the authority of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Arun Vyas and Another v. Anita Vyas 1999 Crl.LJ 3479 : AIR 1999 SC 2071 : (1999) 4 SCC 690 : LNIND 1999 SC 1377, wherein, the offences involved are under Sections 406 and 498A IPC and the Magistrate has taken cognizance of offences without taking note of fact that the complaint was time barred. Though in the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is a continuing offence and on each occasion on which the wife was subjected to cruelty, she would have a new starting point of limitation, however, on facts, the last act of cruelty was committed against the wife on October 13, 1988, on which date, she was forced to leave the matrimonial home and the period of limitation commenced for offences under sections 406and 498A from October 13, 1988, ended on October 12, 1991, but the charge sheet was filed on December 22, 1995 and therefore, it was in the considered view of the Apex Court clearly barred by limitation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further observed that the Court may take cognizance of an offence, after the expiry of period of limitation, only when it is satisfied that on facts and in the circumstances of the case, it is necessary so to do in the interest of justice and when the conduct of the accused is such that applying rule of limitation will give an unfair advantage to him or result in miscarriage of justice. 11. In the present case, none of the circumstances as contemplated above is available. As such, the cognizance of the complaint in respect of the act allegedly happened before three years from the date of complaint is time barred insofar as the petitioners herein are concerned. 12. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of this court to the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Crl. As such, the cognizance of the complaint in respect of the act allegedly happened before three years from the date of complaint is time barred insofar as the petitioners herein are concerned. 12. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of this court to the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Crl. A. No. 1277/2014 (SLP (Crl) No. 9127 of 2013) in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Another AIR 2014 SC 2756 : (2014) 8 SCC 273 : LNIND 2014 SC 647 : (2014) 3 MLJ (Crl) 353, which reads as follows: "There is phenomenal increase in matrimonial disputes in recent years. The institution of marriage is greatly revered in this country. Section 498A of the IPC was introduced with avowed object to combat the menace of harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband and his relatives. The fact that Section 498A is a cognizable and non-bailable offence has lent it a dubious place of pride amongst the provisions that are used as weapons rather than shield by disgruntled wives. The simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his relatives arrested under this provision. In a quite number of cases, bed ridden grand-fathers and grandmothers of the husbands, their sisters living abroad for decade are arrested. "Crime in India 2012 Statistics" published by National Crime Records Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs shows arrest of 1,97,762 persons all over India during the year 2012 for offence under section 498A of the IPC, 9.4% more than the year 2011. Nearly a quarter of those arrested under this provision in 2012 were women i.e., 47,951 which depicts that mothers and sisters of the husbands were liberally included in their arrest net. Its share is 6% out of the total persons arrested under the crimes committed under Indian Penal Code. It accounts for 4.5% of total crimes committed under different sections of penal code, more than any other crimes excepting theft and hurt. The rate of charge sheeting in cases under section 498A IPC is as high as 93.6%, while the conviction rate is only 15%, which is lowest across all heads. It accounts for 4.5% of total crimes committed under different sections of penal code, more than any other crimes excepting theft and hurt. The rate of charge sheeting in cases under section 498A IPC is as high as 93.6%, while the conviction rate is only 15%, which is lowest across all heads. As many as 3,72,706 cases are pending trial of which on current estimate, nearly 3,17,000 are likely to result in acquittal." The Hon'ble Apex Court after having observed so, issued appropriate directions to ensure that police officers do not arrest accused unnecessarily and Magistrate do not authorise detention casually and mechanically. 13. Thus, for the discussions held above, this Court is of the view that the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners herein is both legally and factually unsustainable and is liable to be quashed. In the result, both the criminal original petitions are allowed and the proceedings in CC No. 3792/2012 pending on the file of the X Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai stands quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Petition allowed