Judgment : 1. This criminal original petition is filed by the petitioners/A2 to A10 in Cr.No.12 of 2013 pending investigation on the file of first respondent/Inspector of Police registered on the basis of the compliant given by the second respondent/defacto complaint for the offences under Section 498A and 406 IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act. The petitioners herein are the family members and close relatives of one Sridhar who is none-else than the husband of the second respondent/defacto complainant. The husband is arrayed as A1 in the above FIR. The petitioners herein are the parents, sister, grand parents, paternal uncles, wife and daughter of one of the paternal uncle of A1/Sridhar. 2. The allegations raised in the complaint are regarding ill-treatment of the husband and his family members by demanding 200 soverigns of gold jewels and BMW car before marriage and by demanding 100 soveringns as against 200 soverign and BMW car in the place of Hyundai i20 car after marriage and by keeping the RC book in the custody of the second petitioner/mother-in-law and by setting up the family in the house of 4th petitioner/grand father and by compelling her to do all the household work to all the family members and by scolding her in abusive language and by harassing her for bringing less dowry and by demanding her to bring more household articles and by mixing in the juice given to her in order to prevent her from becoming pregnant and by not giving her sufficient food, while she was ill and by assaulting and attempting to kill her by inducing her husband to get divorce from her and demanding Rs.10Lakhs to put up construction and by threatening her to leave the matrimonial house etc., by kicking her and by inducing her husband to frequently fight with her and by leaving her in one room after locking the entire house and by threatening her not to talk to her parents and by forcibly leaving her in the house of her parents etc. 3. The complaint is filed against the husband and family members. 3. The complaint is filed against the husband and family members. Except the husband/A1, other relatives/A2 to A10 have come forward with the present petition to quash the proceedings on the ground that the complaint lacks bonafide and tainted with malafide intention and the allegations are bald and general in nature without attributing any specific overtact against any of the family members. It is further contended herein that the allegations raised herein do not attract any of the ingredients to make out the offence punishable under Section 498A & 406 IPC. 4. Heard the rival submissions made on both sides. 5. As already referred to, the petitioners herein are the family members and close relatives of the husband of the second respondent. The marriage of the second respondent and her husband took place on 25.04.2012 and the husband and second respondent/wife originally stayed at No.25, 18th cross road, Kakilan Savadi, Tambaram Sanitorium, Chennai-45 and thereafter shifted to No.1, Laxmi Nagar Extension, Chrompet, Chennai. Even according to the averments made in the complaint, the complainant left to her parents house on 28.11.2012. Whereas the present complaint was filed nearly after one year i.e, on 28.12.2013. According to the allegations raised in the complaint, the harassment commenced from the date of her marriage i.e, from 25.04.2012 onwards and the second respondent/defacto complainant has raised serious allegations in her complaint against her husband and his entire family members. 6. At this juncture, it is useful to refer to the judgment reported in (2010) 7 SCC 667 Preeti Gupta and another V. State of Jharkhand and another wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court expressed serious concern about the tendency of implicating the husband and all his immediate relations, who had been living elsewhere in the complaint, without properly realising the implications and consequences by the complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant accused and his close relations. It is observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court “rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment is also a matter of serious concern. 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. 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 tradition and should treat every complaint under Section 498A as a basic human problem and must make serious endeavor to help the parties 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”. It is further observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court “the allegations of the complainant are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection, especially against the husband and his relatives”. The Apex Court is also anxious that a serious relook of the entire provision is warranted by the legislature and that the legislature must take into consideration the pragmatic realities and make suitable changes in the existing law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also expressed its anguish that most of these complaints under Section 498A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations.) 7. The Hon'ble Apex Court has in para 7 of the judgment reported in (1988) 1 SCC 692 Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia V. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre observed that “the Court cannot be utilised for any oblique purpose and the Court shall take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit the prosecution to continue”. The three judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported cited in (2008) 1 SCC (Crl) 259 Inder Mohan Goswami V. State of Uttaranchal observed that “if any abuse of process leading to injustice is brought to the notice of the Court, then the Court would be justified in preventing injustice by invoking inherent powers in absence of specific provisions in the statute”. 8. 8. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the relief sought for herein is to be necessarily appreciated only in the light of the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding the scope and power of this court under Section 482 Cr.PC and the prevailing tendency in using or abusing the process of law. 9. Here is the case, wherein, the reading of the allegations contained in the complaint would reveal that they are bald, vague and general in nature and bereft of details as to the time and place at which the incidents are taken place. Except making reckless and vague allegations against the entire family members of the husband, no allegation much less specific allegation is made against either of the petitioners. In fact, no allegation at all is made against the maternal grand mother and paternal uncles of the husband and their family members, who are the petitioners 5 to 9 herein and who are arrayed as A6 to A10 in the FIR. It would only reveal the anxiety of the complainant to implicate as many of the husband's relatives as possible. 10. As far as the allegations made against the parents-in-law and sister-in-law and maternal grand father/A2 to A5 are concerned, the same are also vague and without any particulars. Even the averments made in the complaint would reveal that the second respondent defacto complainant had not throughout been living together with the parents-in-law and maternal grand father and she has been living at No.1, Lakshmi Nagar Extension, Chrompet, Chennai. It is not her case that all the family members of the husband shifted from grand father's house at No.25, 18th cross Street, Kakilan Savadi, Tambaram, Sanitorium, Chennai-45 to her place at No.1 Lakshmi Nagar Extension, Chrompet, Chennai. It is also not stated in the complaint, as to what was the period during which she was with in-laws and the period during which, she shifted to Lakshmi Nagar Extension, Chrompet, Chennai. The allegations contained in the complaint do not proceed to say that the alleged incident occurred either at Tambaram, Sanitorium, Chennai i.e., in the grand father's house or at No.1, Lakshmi Nagar Extension. The allegations also do not reveal the period during which it happened. The allegations contained in the complaint do not proceed to say that the alleged incident occurred either at Tambaram, Sanitorium, Chennai i.e., in the grand father's house or at No.1, Lakshmi Nagar Extension. The allegations also do not reveal the period during which it happened. The allegations regarding her in-laws as if sarcastic remarks was used against her and they used abusive language for not complying with the demand of BMW car, are raised without stating actual wordings. The allegations regarding her mother-in-law are also without any details and no materials appear to have been collected, in support of ill-health of the petitioner. Even assuming that the allegations are at the face value to be accepted in entirety, the same do not in my considered view, attract the ingredients for the offences under sections 498A and 406 IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act. It is further quite improbable regarding the allegations made against the relatives of the husband, who had been living in different cities and who had not been frequently visiting the place, where there was matrimonial bickering between the parties and the allegations are also not supported by any material statement and legal material to substantiate the same. 11. Only in this context, the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in (2010) 7 SCC 667 (cited supra) regarding the tendency of implicating the husband and all his immediate relations, in the matrimonial proceedings, are to be recollected. In my considered view, the vagueness with which the allegations are made, would render the impugned prosecution to be wholly unfounded and would reveal the oblique motive with which the same is launched and the object behind the same is apparently to harass the husband and his family members. In that event, there is no justification for this court to allow the criminal prosecution to continue against the petitioners herein and to subject the entire family members to face the ordeal of trial. In the event of the proceedings being allowed to go on, it amounts to abuse of process of law and is likely to seriously prejudice the petitioners herein. As such, it is a fit case, wherein the criminal prosecution launched against the petitioners herein is liable to be quashed. 12. In the event of the proceedings being allowed to go on, it amounts to abuse of process of law and is likely to seriously prejudice the petitioners herein. As such, it is a fit case, wherein the criminal prosecution launched against the petitioners herein is liable to be quashed. 12. In the result, this criminal original petition is allowed by quashing the quashing the FIR in Cr.No.12 of 2013 pending on the file of All Women Police Station, W-30, Poonamallee, Tiruvallur District. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.