Judgment : 1. By this Application, the applicant (original complainant) seeks quashing and setting aside of the Judgment and Order dated 2nd November, 2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Criminal Revision Application No.456 of 2010, whereby the order of process, dated 21st June, 2010 issued by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pune in R.C.C. No.1066/2009 and consequently the complaint came to be quashed as against respondent Nos.2 to 4. 2. The facts giving rise to the filing of the present Revision Application are as follows:- The Applicant is the original complainant, who has filed a private complaint, bearing No.0401066 of 2009 (later numbered as R.C.C. No.1066/2009), in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pune, alleging an offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC'), as against her husband and Respondent Nos.2 to 4. The Respondent No.2 is the brother-in-law, Respondent No.3 the father-in-law, who at the relevant time, was 79 years of age and Respondent No.4 the mother-in-law, who was about 70 years of age, at the time of filing of the Revision Application seeking their discharge. During the pendency of the present Revision Application, Respondent No.3 expired on 1st February, 2013 and accordingly, the Death Certificate of the said respondent was taken on record and marked as Article 'X'. Pursuant to the private complaint lodged by the Applicant herein, the learned Magistrate after perusing the documents and the report under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Cr.P.C.') was pleased to issue process vide order dated 21st June, 2010 as against Prafulchandra Shelke (original accused No.1) and respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein. Against the aforesaid order dated 21st June, 2010 issuing process, the respondent Nos.2 to 4 and Prafulchandra Shelke, original accused No.1, filed an application, being Criminal Revision Application No.456/2010 in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Pune, seeking quashing of the said order of process dated 21st June, 2010. The learned Sessions Judge, Pune vide order dated 2nd November, 2011 was pleased to allow the said Revision partly, inasmuch as, the learned Judge was pleased to quash the order issuing process dated 21st June, 2010 as against the respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein. Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 2nd November, 2011, the applicant i.e. the original complainant has filed this present Revision Application. Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 2nd November, 2011, the applicant i.e. the original complainant has filed this present Revision Application. 3. Heard Mr. Jagdish Chaudhary, the learned Counsel for the Applicant and Mr. Prakash Naik for Respondent Nos.2 to 4. 4. Learned Counsel for the Applicant contended that the Applicant got married to Prafulchandra Shelke on 3rd July, 1999 at Pune and the couple was blessed with a child by name Kumar Harsh. He submits that after marriage, respondent Nos.2 to 4 and the applicant's husband started harassing her on various counts and these acts have been narrated in detail in the complaint filed by the applicant in the Magistrate Court. 5. The learned Counsel took me through the private complaint filed in the Magistrate's Court, being R.C.C. No.1066/2009 (Exhibit 'A' to the said Petition), more particularly, pages 21, 23, 31 and 36 of the said complaint. In para 15 at page 21, it is stated that as the applicant's husband Prafulchandra Shelke (original accused No.1) was to return from Abu Dhabi sometime in August, 2000 to Mumbai, the applicant was asked to go to Malad, Mumbai, to her in-laws residence. Accordingly, the applicant was dropped off at Malad by her father. It is alleged that within half an hour of reaching her in-laws house, the respondent No.2 started asking the applicant arrogantly as to what was her phone bill, light bill, whether she telephones her parents, whether she invites them home, whether they come home, and if they come, why do they come, etc. She has further alleged that the respondent No.2 had stated that she should not be allowing her parents home and started abusing them in filthy language. It is further alleged that the respondent No.2 asked the Applicant whether the said house at Pune was purchased by her father and if the father had paid for the house, it was alright for them to visit the house. It is also alleged that he threatened to finish off the family. According to the applicant, the respondent No.2 on being told to speak properly, in a fit of anger, started assaulting the applicant and banged her head against the wall two to four times and assaulted her by fist and kick blows. It is also alleged that he threatened to finish off the family. According to the applicant, the respondent No.2 on being told to speak properly, in a fit of anger, started assaulting the applicant and banged her head against the wall two to four times and assaulted her by fist and kick blows. She has alleged that when she was being assaulted, the respondent Nos.3 to 4 i.e. the in-laws, were merely witnessing the same and did not utter a word. Thereafter, the applicant's father was called and she was taken to Bandra. On arrival of the applicant's husband (original accused No.1) the said incident is alleged to have been disclosed by the applicant's father to him, however, it is alleged that he did not question the respondents and stated whatever was done was correct. 6. The learned Counsel for the applicant relied on page 23 i.e. internal page 14 of the complaint, wherein it was stated that the applicant's husband told the applicant that for the purchase of a flat, the applicant's father should pay a sum of Rs.8 to 10 lakhs. According to her, the respondent Nos.2 to 4 also had the same feeling and the said expectations were allegedly disclosed by the applicant's husband to her and thus the respondent Nos.2 to 4 were also continuously demanding the said money from her. 7. Thereafter, on page 31 i.e. internal page 22 of the complaint, it is alleged that sometime in December, 2005 during the holidays, respondent Nos.2 to 4 visited the applicant and her husband (original accused No.1) at Pune. It is alleged that as a result of their visit, there were frequent quarrels between the applicant and her husband. It is alleged that as the applicant's husband could not tell his mother (respondent No.4) to help in the house, the applicant's husband started washing the utensils in anger. On seeing the same, the applicant is alleged to have told the husband to leave the utensils and that she would wash the same later. On hearing the said conversation, it is alleged that the respondent No.2 attacked the applicant with a knife and that the respondent Nos.2 to 4 and the husband started using filthy language and abused her. 8. On hearing the said conversation, it is alleged that the respondent No.2 attacked the applicant with a knife and that the respondent Nos.2 to 4 and the husband started using filthy language and abused her. 8. The learned Counsel for the applicant, thereafter, relied on the allegations set out on page 36 i.e. internal page 27 of the complaint, wherein, it is stated that on 27th May, 2008, her in-laws i.e. respondent Nos.3 to 4 had called up the applicant. It is alleged that the in-laws i.e. respondent Nos.3 and 4 insisted that the applicant and her son Harsh should come to Malad, Mumbai. However, considering the previous conduct of the respondent No.2 of assault and abuses, the applicant has stated, that she was apprehensive of visiting their house, as she feared for her life and therefore, did not visit Malad. 9. According to the learned Counsel for the applicant in the report sent by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Swargate Police Station, Pune, it is stated that whenever the husband visited Abu Dhabi, the respondent Nos.2 to 4 were not treating her well and would not give her any money for the expenses and would ask her to bring money from her parents house. 10. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 4 submitted that the marriage between the applicant and the original accused No.1 had taken place on 3rd July, 1999 and after marriage, the couple started residing at Pune in 1999 itself. He submitted that infact, the flat was purchased in the year 1999 and the same is also reflected in the complaint on page 17 of the present Revision Application. He, therefore, contended that the allegation that the respondent Nos.2 to 4 were demanding money for purchase of the flat is belied by the applicant's own complaint. He further submitted that the present respondents, are residents of Malad at Mumbai and that neither the applicant had stayed with them nor they had stayed with the applicant. He relied on the report submitted by the police to the Court in the inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C., which is at page 45, which confirms the said fact. He further submitted that the present respondents, are residents of Malad at Mumbai and that neither the applicant had stayed with them nor they had stayed with the applicant. He relied on the report submitted by the police to the Court in the inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C., which is at page 45, which confirms the said fact. He further submits, that one of the incident that has been alleged in the present case, is of the year 2000, wherein, the allegation is of demand of money for a house which was already purchased in the year 1999 and as such, the same shows the falsity of the complaint. He further submits that under Section 468 of the Cr.P.C., no cognizance ought to have been taken by the learned Magistrate of the said complaint, inasmuch as, the main incidents as against the respondent Nos.2 to 4 are of the year 1999, 2000 and 2005, whereas, the private complaint has been filed in 2009. He submits that the learned Magistrate ought not to have taken cognizance of the said complaint and issued process, considering the fact that the alleged allegations were barred under Section 468 of the Cr.P.C. He further contended that the learned Sessions Judge has rightly quashed the order of process dated 21st June, 2010 and consequently, the complaint as against the respondent Nos.2 to 4, after considering the material on record. 11. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by the parties. I have gone through the petition along with its annexures and the impugned Judgment and Order. 12. At the outset, it would be apposite to reproduce Section 498A in order to appreciate the facts of the present case as to whether the alleged acts would fall within the purview of Section 498A of the IPC: "498A. 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. 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 purposes 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; or (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." 13. A perusal of the aforesaid Section shows that in order to attract the provisions of Section 498A, the women must be subjected to cruelty as contemplated in the explanation "a" or "b" of the said Section. As per clause (a) the willful conduct must be of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life or (b) the harassment of the woman should be with a view to coerce her or her relatives to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security and or on account of failure to meet such demand. In the present case, the applicant has filed a private complaint as against the respondent Nos.2 to 4 and her husband. Admittedly, the marriage had taken place between the applicant and the co-accused-Prafulchandra Madhukar Shelke on 3rd July, 1999 and the incidents are alleged to have taken place soon thereafter. The incidents are of the year 1999, 2000 and 2005. It is pertinent to note, that in the entire complaint, there is no illegal demand of any kind alleged to have been made by the respondents. The house for which the money was allegedly demanded was in fact purchased in the year 1999, as is evident from the recitals of the complaint itself on page 17. It is pertinent to note, that in the entire complaint, there is no illegal demand of any kind alleged to have been made by the respondents. The house for which the money was allegedly demanded was in fact purchased in the year 1999, as is evident from the recitals of the complaint itself on page 17. Admittedly, the respondents are the brother in-law and in-laws of the applicant, who were residing at Malad in Mumbai whereas, the applicant and her husband were residing in a flat standing in both their names at Pune. 14. It is pertinent to note, that none of the allegations as set out in the complaint as against the respondent Nos.2 to 4 would constitute 'cruelty' as defined under Section 498A of the IPC. Clause (b) of Section 498A does not make each and every harassment cruelty. The harassment contemplated, has to be with a definite object, namely to coerce the woman or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand. Hence, mere harassment is not cruelty. 15. Considering the material on record, the dispute or discord between the applicant and the respondents does not appear to be of such a nature as is contemplated under Section 498A of the IPC. Considering the facts as stated above, it cannot be said that the applicant has made out a case as against the respondents for the alleged offence punishable under Section 498A. The tendency to implicate all the family members has been deprecated by the Apex Court, whenever there is a matrimonial dispute. The ages of the respondent Nos.3 and 4 at the time of filing the complaint as reflected in the cause title were 79 and 70. The Appellate Court has rightly, after considering the material on record, quashed the order of process issued as against the respondent Nos.2 and 4 and consequently the complaint. 16. As the revision is devoid of merit, it is not necessary to consider whether the Magistrate was competent to take cognizance of the complaint, in view of the bar under Section 468 of the Cr.P.C. 17. Thus, the impugned order partly allowing the revision preferred by the respondent Nos.2 and 4, and quashing order of issue of process dated 21st June, 2010 in R.C.C. No.1066/2009 and consequently the complaint as against the respondent Nos.2 to 4 is legal and proper and does not call for any interference. 18. Thus, the impugned order partly allowing the revision preferred by the respondent Nos.2 and 4, and quashing order of issue of process dated 21st June, 2010 in R.C.C. No.1066/2009 and consequently the complaint as against the respondent Nos.2 to 4 is legal and proper and does not call for any interference. 18. Accordingly, the Revision is dismissed, being devoid of merits.