ORDER 1. This application is filed under section 482 of CrPC for quashment of FIR arising out of Crime No.806/2012 registered at Police Station -- Lasudia, District -- Indore under section 498A of IPC and the proceedings in Criminal Case No.36466/2012 pending before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore. 2. The brief facts and the background giving rise to this application are that present applicants are facing trial before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in the aforementioned criminal case. Present applicants filed criminal revision before the Sessions Court which was registered as Criminal Revision No.318/2012 and disposed of by 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore. The revision was dismissed and aggrieved by such order, present applicants filed an application under section 482 of CrPC before this Court which was disposed of in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.5268/2013 dated 4.7.2013. This Court while disposing of the application observed as under :- Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of with a direction that the trial Court shall first hear the arguments of learned counsel for the parties on the point of framing of charge, at that time or thereafter the application seeking discharge shall be considered in accordance with law and a reasoned order be passed. It is made clear here that while deciding the application filed by the accused seeking discharge, the trial Court shall not be influenced by the earlier order of rejection passed by him affirmed by the revisional Court. 3. In compliance of the direction issued by this Court in aforementioned Miscellaneous Criminal Case, the matter was again considered by the concerning Court and by the impugned order dated 5.12.2013, the Court found that though, present applicants were living separately from the complainant, however, there is no evidence that they did not visit the matrimonial house of the complainant, therefore, it cannot be presumed that they were not involved in commission of crime. Hence, in that view of the matter, the Court proceeded to frame charges against the present applicants under section 498A of IPC. 4. Aggrieved by this order in the second round of litigation, this application is again filed against the impugned order passed by the concerning Court dated 5.12.2013 on the ground that present applicants were falsely implicated in the case. The complainant was married to Gokul Singh on 7.5.2009. Applicant No.1 Jeevan Singh is son of elder brother of father of the husband Gokul Singh. The complainant was married to Gokul Singh on 7.5.2009. Applicant No.1 Jeevan Singh is son of elder brother of father of the husband Gokul Singh. He lives separately. Applicant No.2 Sardar Singh is brother-in-law and husband of sister of the husband of the complainant, who lives in village – Hatod, Tahsil -- Sardarpur, District -- Dhar. He is not part of the family and has nothing to do with demand of dowry in this matter. Applicant No.3 Babita Singh is sister-in-law of the complainant and sister of the husband of complainant. She is married for the last 8 years and lives in matrimonial house with her husband. According to the applicants, there are only omnibus allegations against the present applicants and no case is made out against them. They are only implicated in the case for harassment. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents raised preliminary objection at this stage that after the direction issued by this Court in Miscellaneous Crminal Case No.5268/2013 dated 4.7.2013, the trial Court passed impugned order dated 5.12.2013 and against this order again, revision lies. This was not availed by the present applicant and, therefore, this application under section 482 of CrPC does not lie unless the remedy available to the present applicant of filing of revision is exhausted. However, after due consideration, I find that this is second stage of litigation. No benefit would arise in remanding the case back to the revisional Court for fresh directions. The matter was thrice considered by the Courts below. Therefore, as an exceptional case, it appears proper to decide this application on merit. 6. Learned counsel for the applicants placed reliance of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra and another v. State of U.P. and another, reported in AIR 2013 SC 181 , in which it was held that when there are allegations against brother and sister of the husband and there are only casual allegations against them then complaint against such persons is liable to be quashed. 7. 7. After going through the copies of the charge-sheet filed by the applicants following facts are mentioned in the FIR:- eSa xzke rykoyh pk¡nk bankSj esa jgrh gw¡A esjh 'kknh 7 ebZ o"kZ 2009 esa fganw jhfr fjokt ls xksdqy flag fuoklh rykoyh pk¡nk ls gqbZ Fkh 'kknh ds ckn ,d o"kZ rd xksdqy o mlds ifjokj okyksa us eq>s Bhd&Bkd j[kk blds ckn eq>s esjs ifr xksdqy flag] lkl Hkwjh ckbZ] uunksbZ ljnkj flag] tsB thou flag o uun cfcrk ckbZ vk, fnu ngst esa vYVks dkj dh ekax dj jgs gSa vkSj esjs lkFk xkyh xykSp o ekjihV dj eq>s 'kkjhfjd o ekufld :i ls izrkfM+r djrs gSa ;g ckr eSaus vius ekrk firk o ifjokj okyksa dks crkbZ mUgksaus vHkh rd le>kSrk djkus dh dksf'k'k dh fQj Hkh ;g yksx ugha ekus eSa vHkh rd ;g izrkMuk,a lgrh vkbZ gw¡ vc eSa vius firk th Hkxoku flag o HkkbZ jktsanz flag dks lkFk ysdj fjiksVZ djus Fkkus vk;h gw¡ fjiksVZ djrh gwa dk;Zokgh dh tk,A fjiksVZ i<+dj lquh lgh gksus ij gLrk{kj fd,A 8. During the investigation, statements of complainant Deepa Bai, brother Rajendra Singh, father Bhagwan Singh and mother Mankunwar Bai were recorded. They all stated in their statements the similar facts that present applicants along with husband Gokul Singh and mother-in-law Bhuri Bai demanded Alto Car from parents of the complainant. The allegations against the present applicants are omnibus in nature. In the FIR as well as statements of the prosecution witnesses, it is admitted that they lived separately from the complainant and husband. Though, it is true that there is no specific allegation as mentioned by learned Magistrate in the impugned order that they never visited matrimonial house of the complainant, however, for constituting the offence, there should be specific allegation and role played by each and every accused, which is missing in the present case. 9. Accordingly, in my considered opinion, the application under section 482 of CrPC is allowed. The FIR arises out of Crime No.806/2012 and the consequential proceedings in Criminal Case No.36466/2012 so far as it relates to the present applicants are quashed. Present applicants are discharged from the offence under section 498A of IPC.