ORDER 1. Heard learned counsels for the petitioners and the opposite parties. 2. The present application has been filed for quashing the order dated 6.10.2012 passed by the learned S.D.J.M. Danapur, Patna, in Complaint Case No. 680 (C) of 2012 whereby the processes were directed to be issued alter cognizance being taken for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 494, 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. The petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 are the brother, married sister, parents and the paternal aunt of the husband of the complainant while petitioner No. 6 is alleged to be the second wife of husband of the complainant and petitioner No. 7 is the husband of the complainant. 4. The accusations are of torture for non-fulfillment of dowry demand and performing second marriage. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that accusation is omnibus and general against the entire in-laws of the complainant and petitioner No. 7 is still ready to keep the complainant as wife with full dignity and honour. Though performance of second marriage between petitioner No. 7 Amarjit Kumar @ Anil Kumar Choudhary husband of the complainant and petitioner No. 6 Priya Kumari has also been admitted by learned counsel for the petitioners. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the complainant that accusation of demand of dowry is also levelled against parents of petitioner No. 7 and other accused persons but at the same time it is admitted that it is not specific. 7. On hearing the rival submissions of the learned counsels for the parties, it appears that the first marriage of petitioner No. 7 with the complainant and the second marriage with the petitioner No. 6 i.e. Priya Kumari are admitted facts. 8. On going through the complaint, it appears that so far as the accusations against the petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 are concerned, it is not specific and it has only been alleged against them that they demanded Rs. 1 Lakh from the parents of the complainant and the petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 did not return back the belongings of the complainant. 1 to 5 are concerned, it is not specific and it has only been alleged against them that they demanded Rs. 1 Lakh from the parents of the complainant and the petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 did not return back the belongings of the complainant. 8(A) Here it would be relevant to first understand and examine the scope and ambit of Section 498-A of the IPC, 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 willful 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. (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." 9. Cruelty has been defined by Explanation added to the section itself. The basic ingredients of Section 498A of the IPC, are cruelty and harassment. The elements of cruelty, so far as, Clause (a) is concerned, have been classified as follows:- (i) Any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide. (ii) Any willful conduct which is likely to cause grave injury to the woman. (iii) Any willful conduct which is likely to cause danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman. 10. For the purpose of Clause (b), essential ingredients are as under:- "Harassment of married woman with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand." 11. 10. For the purpose of Clause (b), essential ingredients are as under:- "Harassment of married woman with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand." 11. It is thus evident that charge under Section 498A of the IPC, can be brought home, if the essential ingredients, either in Clause (a) or (b), or both, are found duly established. 12. In view of the above, on threadbare analysis of the accusation levelled in complaint, it would become evident that allegation of torture or demand of dowry is general and omnibus against all the accused persons. It is also evident, as it appears from the allegations in the complaint case, that the petitioners Nos. 1 to 5, who are the relatives of the husband have also been named in a routine manner, as has become a general practice and tendency, to rope in each and every family member of the in-laws, with exaggerated version in a case under Section 498A of the IPC, which has assumed alarming proportion. Such practice of implicating each and every relative of the husband is a dangerous trend, which needs to be curbed at the budding stage itself, as it has been destroying peace of families after families and has also been damaging the matrimonial fabric of the society over little skirmishes, just for the sake of ego satisfaction. 13. The Apex Court, in the case of G.V. Rao vs. L.H.V. Prasad and others, 2000 (2) East Cr. C 498 (SC): (2000) 3 SCC 693 , has deprecated the deliberate implication of entire family members of the husband. Paragraph No. 12 of the judgment is as under:- "There has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which the elders of the family arc also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which the elders of the family arc also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mental agreement instead of fighting it out in a Court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their young days in chasing their cases in different Courts." 14. This tendency has also been deprecated by the Apex Court in the case of Preeti Gupta & another vs. State of Jharkhand & another, 2009 (4) East Cr. C 306 (Jhr): (2010) 7 SCC 667 , paragraph Nos. 34, 35 and 36 of which read as follows:- "34. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualized by the complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations." "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 the 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." 36. Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour of acrimony and bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. The allegations of the complainant are required to be scrutinised with great care and circumspection." 36. Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour of acrimony and bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter of common knowledge that in cases filed by the complainant if the husband or the husband's relations had to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of an amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful." 15. It has further been held in paragraph No. 37 to the effect that:- "We would like to observe that a serious relook of the entire provision warranted by the legislature. It is also a matter of common knowledge that exaggerated versions of the incident are reflected in a large number of complaints. The tendency of over implications is also reflected in a very large number of cases. The criminal trials lead to immense sufferings for all concerned. Even ultimate acquittal in the trial may also not be able to wipe out the deep scars of suffering of ignominy. Unfortunately a large number of these complaints have not only flooded the Courts but also have led to enormous social unrest affecting peace, harmony and happiness of the society. It is high time that the legislature to take into consideration the informed public opinion and the pragmatic relatives in consideration and make necessary changes in the relevant provisions of law." 16. In the case of Neelu Chopra & another vs. Bharti, (2009) 10 SCC 184 , the tendency of such over implication in a casual manner has been dealt with, in the following words, in paragraph No. 9, which reads as follows:- "In order to lodge a proper complaint, mere mention of the sections and the language of those sections is not the be all and end all of the matter what is required to be brought to the notice of the Court is the particulars of the offence committed by each and every accused and the role played by each and every accused in committing of that offence." 17. Similar view was taken by the Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra & another vs. State of U.P. & another, 2013 (1) PLJR (SC) 10, relying upon the earlier view of the Apex Court recorded in the matter of G.V. Rao vs. L.H.V. Prasad and others, 2000 (2) East Cr. C 498 (SC): (2000) 3 SCC 693 , Paragraph Nos. 19 of Geeta Mehrotra (supra) reads as follows:- "19. Coming to the facts of this case, when the contents of the F.I.R. is perused, it is apparent that there are no allegations against Kumari Geeta Mehrotra and Ramji Mehrotra except casual reference of their names who have been included in the F.I.R. but mere casual reference of the names of the family members in a matrimonial dispute without allegation of active involvement in the matter would not justify taking cognizance against them overlooking the fact borne out of experience that there is a tendency to involve the entire family members of the household in the domestic quarrel taking place in a matrimonial dispute specially if it happens soon after the wedding." 18. On perusal of the allegations levelled against the petitioners in the complaint, this Court fails to find the specific particulars of the offence and the specific role played by the accused petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 in the commission of the offence and in considered view of this Court, the allegations against the petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 is nothing but a prima facie case of over implication. 19. So far as the exercise of power under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. is concerned, a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court examined the legal position with regard to the exercise of power under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. in the case of Inder Mohan Goswami vs. State of Uttaranchal, (2007) 12 SCC 1 . The relevant observations have been made in paragraph No. 24 of the judgment in the following words:- "24. Inherent powers under Section 482, Cr. P.C. though wide have to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in this section itself. Authority of the Court exists for the advancement of justice. Inherent powers under Section 482, Cr. P.C. though wide have to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in this section itself. Authority of the Court exists for the advancement of justice. If any abuse of the process leading to injustice is brought to the notice of the Court, then the Court would be justified in preventing injustice by invoking powers in absence of specific provisions in the statute." 20. The Apex Court in the case of Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. vs. Mohd. Sharaful Haque, 2005 (1) East Cr. C 52 (SC): (2005) 1 SCC 122 , has observed in paragraph No. 8 of the judgment, in the following words: "8. It would be an abuse of process of Court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers. Court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of Court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the Court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in to." 21. The principles relating to exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. to quash complaints and criminal proceedings have been stated and reiterated by the Apex Court in several decisions, which are stated as under:- (i) Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia vs. Sambhajirao Chanderjirao Angre, (1988) 1 SCC 692 (ii) State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 (iii) Rupan Deol Bajaj vs. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill, (1995) 6 SCC 194 (iv) Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd. (1996) 5 SCC 591 (v) State of Bihar vs. Rajendra Agrawalla, (1996) 8 SCC 164 (vi) Rajesh Bajaj vs. State of Delhi, 1999 (1) East Cr. C 950 (SC): (1999) 3 SCC 259 (vii) Medchl Chemicals & Pharma Pvt. Ltd. vs. Biological E. Ltd. 2000 (2) East Cr. C 524 (SC): (2000) 3 SCC 269 (viii) Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma vs. State of Bihar, 2000 (2) East Cr. C 950 (SC): (1999) 3 SCC 259 (vii) Medchl Chemicals & Pharma Pvt. Ltd. vs. Biological E. Ltd. 2000 (2) East Cr. C 524 (SC): (2000) 3 SCC 269 (viii) Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma vs. State of Bihar, 2000 (2) East Cr. C 634 (SC): (2000) 4 SCC 168 (ix) M. Krishnan vs. Vijay Singh, 2001 (3) East Cr. C 350 (SC): (2001) 8 SCC 645 22. Relying upon the decisions rendered in the above mentioned cases the Apex Court in the case of Indian Oil Corporation vs. NEPC India Ltd. (2006) 6 SCC 736 , carved out five broad principles for exercise of power under Section 482. Cr PC Paragraph No. 12 reads as follows:- (1) A complaint can be quashed where the allegations made in the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out the case alleged against the accused. For this purpose, the complaint has to be examined as a whole, but without examining the merits of the allegations. Neither a detailed enquiry nor a meticulous analysis of the material nor an assessment of the reliability or genuineness of the allegations in the complaint, is warranted while examining prayer for quashing of a complaint. (ii) A complaint may also be quashed where it is a clear abuse of the process of the Court, as when the criminal proceeding is found to have been initiated with mala fides/malice for wreaking vengeance or to cause harm, or where the allegations are absurd and inherently improbable. (iii) The power to quash shall not, however, be used to stifle or scuttle a legitimate prosecution. The power should be used sparingly and with abundant caution. (iv) The complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients of the offence alleged. If the necessary factual foundation is laid in the complaint merely on the ground that a few ingredients have not been stated in detail, the proceedings should not be quashed. Quashing of the complaint is warranted only where the complaint is so bereft of even basic fads which are absolutely necessary for making out the offence. (v) A given set of facts may make out – (a) Purely a civil wrong. (b) Purely a criminal offence. Quashing of the complaint is warranted only where the complaint is so bereft of even basic fads which are absolutely necessary for making out the offence. (v) A given set of facts may make out – (a) Purely a civil wrong. (b) Purely a criminal offence. A commercial transaction or a contractual dispute, apart from furnishing a cause of action for seeking remedy in civil law, may also involve a criminal offence. As the nature and scope of a civil proceeding are different from a criminal proceeding, the mere fact that the complaint relates to a commercial transaction or breach of contract, for which a civil remedy is available or has been availed, is not by itself a ground to quash the criminal proceedings. The test is whether .the allegations in the complaint disclose a criminal offence or not." 23. In view of the above judgments referred to, it is clear that the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. can be exercised in fit cases for advancement of justice and for preventing the abuse of the process of law. 24. It may be observed that unfortunately the matrimonial litigations have rapidly increased which has taken in its ambit, a large number of people of the society and the tendency to implicate the entire in-laws with exaggerated version has become a routine of the day with the development of the society, the institution of marriage has ultimately confined to the nucleus of relationship between the husband and wife. 25. Hence, under such circumstances, it would be an abuse of the process of law to allow the prosecution to continue, on the basis of vague and general allegations which is also silent about the precise act of petitioner Nos. 1 to 5. 26. In view of the discussions made above, prosecution with regard to petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 including the order of cognizance and issuance of process dated 6.10.2012 in Complaint Case No. 680 (C) of 2012 are hereby quashed. 27. Accordingly, the application is allowed to the extent as indicated above. 28. It is made clear that proceeding will continue against petitioner No. 6 Priya Kumari and petitioner No. 7 Amarjit Kumar @ Anil Kumar Chaudhary. Application allowed in part.