ORDER 1. This petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings pending in C.C.No.19/2011 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.V, Vellore. The second respondent preferred a private complaint before the Judicial Magistrate No.V, Vellore on 21.09.2010. Pursuant to investigation, a final report in Crime No.44/2010 was filed on 01.12.2010 under Sections 498 (A), 294(b) 354 and 406 IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and the case is now pending trial on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.V, Vellore. 2. The matter was referred to the Mediation Centre of this Court and the report of the centre states that no amicable settlement was reached between the parties. 3. Heard Mr. Prabudoss, learned counsel for petitioners 1, 2 and 3. Ms. Auxila Peter, learned counsel for petitioners 4 to 6. We have also heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for fifth respondent. Counsel for the second respondent/ defacto -complainant is not present. 4. Learned counsel for petitioners 1 to 3 submitted that the list witnesses as per the charge sheet were the defacto -complainant, who is the wife of the first petitioner and her relatives; no independent witnesses have been examined; the defacto -complainant had taken away the children, deserted the petitioner and set up an independent residence on 21.07.2010. The first petitioner’s sisters and brother-in-law, who were the petitioners 4 to 6 had never resided with the first petitioner and his wife viz. , the defacto -complainant. The petitioners 4 to 6 are foreign nationals; the allegations against petitioners 4 to 6 and the first petitioner’s parents/accused 2 and 3 are false and motivated. 5. Learned counsel for petitioners 4 to 6 submitted that they were the residents of United States of America and had been in India on a holiday between 3rd July 2010 till 23rd July 2010 and placed heavy reliance on the travel documents and hotel bills. Learned counsel submitted that they had continued to be on tour and had never been at Vellore, the place where wrong allegedly took place and more particularly on 20.07.2010, when the 6th petitioner, who is the husband of the 5th petitioner/sister of the first petitioner is stated to have misbehaved with the defacto complainant and at that time, they were at Chennai. 6. Considering the submissions, this Court finds that insofar as the petitioners 4 to 6 are concerned, there is every likelihood of false implication. 6. Considering the submissions, this Court finds that insofar as the petitioners 4 to 6 are concerned, there is every likelihood of false implication. It is seen that none of the list witnesses, barring the defacto complainant are residents of Vellore. Therefore, testimony against such petitioners only can be that of the defacto complainant/second respondent. 7. Though it is in a rare case that in considering a quash petition, this Court would look into materials placed by the accused, this Court do so in the instant case keeping in mind the observations of the Apex Court in Preeti Gupta and Another v. State of Jharkhand and Another AIR 2010 SC 3363 : (2010) 7 SCC 667 to the following effect: “ 32. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under Section 498-A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment is also a matter of serious concern. 33. 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 traditions and should treat every complaint under Section 498-A as a basic human problem and must make serious endeavour to help the parties in 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 tranquillity of the society remains intact. The members of the Bar should also ensure that one complaint should not lead to multiple cases. 34. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualised by the complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations. 35. The members of the Bar should also ensure that one complaint should not lead to multiple cases. 34. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualised 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 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, 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.” 8. A perusal of the typed set informs that the petitioners 4 to 6 had continued to be on tour and more particularly, that on 20.07.2010, the petitioners 4 to 6 had been at Chennai. This leads to the conclusion that the petitioners 4 to 6 falsely have been implicated. For such reason, this Criminal Original Petition shall stand allowed in respect of petitioners 4 to 6. This leads to the conclusion that the petitioners 4 to 6 falsely have been implicated. For such reason, this Criminal Original Petition shall stand allowed in respect of petitioners 4 to 6. As regards petitioners 2 and 3, this Court, without any in any manner suggesting truth of the prosecution case, would take into consideration their age, the fact that they are persons informed to be 76 and 69 years old respectively, require the Court below to dispense with the personal appearance of petitioners 2 and 3 before it, upon their swearing to affidavits informing their address for service, that they would be duly represented by counsel on all hearing dates, that they would, at no instance, dispute their identity and that, they would appear before the trial court as and when required. Upon the petitioners doing so, the trial court may seek the presence of the petitioners before it, solely on the important hearing dates. 9. In the result, (i) this Criminal Original Petition is allowed in respect of petitioners 4 to 6. The proceedings in C.C.No.19 of 2011 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate V, Vellore, are quashed insofar petitioners 4 to 6 are concerned. (ii) this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed in respect of petitioners 1 to 3 with the above direction. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Petition dismissed.