JUDGMENT : B.D. Rathi, J. 1. With the consent of parties matter is finally heard. 2. By invoking the inherent powers of this Court, the instant petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'the Code') seeking the relief of quashment of order dated 15-10-2008 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class in Criminal Case No. 1892/2008 whereby the cognizance for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC has been taken against the petitioners. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 08-05-1995 marriage of respondent No. 1 Smt. Hemlata Sharma was solemnized with petitioner No. 1 as per Hindu ritual and rites. Complainant has stated that as per capacity of her father dowry and house- hold articles were given in the marriage. It is alleged that accused/petitioners were not satisfied with the dowry given in the marriage and they used to demand dowry of Rs.1 lac and grains and on non-fulfillment of demand of dowry, they used to hurl filthy language, assault her and subjected to cruelty. It is further alleged that accused persons/petitioners used to threat the complainant to kill her by pouring kerosene oil. Complainant has further alleged that when she had seriously fallen sick, no medicine was provided to her by her in-laws and when her father got herself admitted in Kamlaraja Hospital, Gwalior accused persons reached at the hospital and abused the complainant for demand of dowry. The allegation on character of complainant has also been levelled by the accused persons. 4. It has further been submitted by complainant that when all this matter was reported to the police, no heed has been paid by them under the influence of father of petitioner No. 1 who was posted at Police Station Gwalior. Thereafter, under the compelled circumstances, complainant has knocked the doors of the Court of law by filing private complaint before learned trial Court. On the aforesaid complaint, after recording the statements under Sections 200 and 202 of the Code, vide impugned order dated 15-10-2008 learned trial Court has taken cognizance for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC and registered the Criminal Case No. 1892/2008 against the petitioners. 5. On the aforesaid complaint, after recording the statements under Sections 200 and 202 of the Code, vide impugned order dated 15-10-2008 learned trial Court has taken cognizance for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC and registered the Criminal Case No. 1892/2008 against the petitioners. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted if the entire facts and allegations levelled in the complaint are taken into consideration in its totality, no case for offence under Section 498-A of IPC is made out because nowhere time, date and place of incident has been narrated by the complainant in her complaint, therefore, on the basis of some omnibus allegations neither cognizance can be taken nor petitioners can be convicted. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that statements of complainant -Hemlata Sharma (PW-1), Ramnaresh Sharma (PW-2) and Mahavir Prasad Jain were recorded under Sections 200 and 202 of the Code and similar statements were given by all these witnesses but nowhere the time, date and place of alleged incident has been narrated by the complainant and her witnesses. 6. Counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the issue involved in the present case is squarely covered by the judgment of Reeta Sharma and others Vs. State of M.P. and another : 2014 (I) MP WN 86 wherein the FIR has been quashed by this Court on the ground that no time, date and place of alleged incident has been narrated by the complainant. Further reliance has been placed by the petitioner on the decision of Apex Court in the matter of Neelu Chopra and another Vs. Bharti : (2009) 10 SCC 184 wherein following law has been laid down: In order to lodge a proper complaint, mere mention to 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 prayed by each and every accused in committing of that offence. 7. 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 prayed by each and every accused in committing of that offence. 7. Combating the submissions of petitioners' learned counsel, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submitted that against the order of taking cognizance passed by trial Court, petitioners had recourse to approach the revisional Court by invoking the provisions of Section 397 of the Code but instead of adopting that forum, petitioners have directly approached this Court by invoking the inherent powers vested under Section 482 of the Code, therefore, this petition is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed. It has further been submitted that it is matter of trial that when offence has taken place, what was the date and where it has taken place and all these will be proved by the complainant by producing relevant documents before the trial Court, hence at this stage, no interference can be made. 8. This Court in the matter of Asharam Bapu Vs. Aman Singh Dangi and others, : 2014 (5) MPHT 71 has laid down the law that availability of alternative remedy is not an absolute bar in entertaining a petitioner under Section 482 of the Code. Thus, the petition filed by the petitioners is very much maintainable before this Court. 9. Having regard to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, entire material available on record has been perused. 10. It is trite law that if the complaint/FIR does not disclose specific allegation against accused more so against the co- accused specially in a matter arising out of matrimonial bickering, it would be clear abuse of the legal and judicial process to mechanically send the name accused in the FIR to undergo the trial unless of course the complaint/FIR discloses specific allegations which would persuade the Court to take cognizance of the offence alleged against the relatives of the main accused who are prima facie not found to have indulged in physical and mental torture of the complainant-wife. It is the well settled principle laid down in cases too numerous to mention, that if the complaint/FIR did not disclose the commission of an offence, the court would be justified in quashing the proceedings preventing the abuse of the process of law. 11. It is the well settled principle laid down in cases too numerous to mention, that if the complaint/FIR did not disclose the commission of an offence, the court would be justified in quashing the proceedings preventing the abuse of the process of law. 11. Here, in the present case from perusal of complaint, it is clear that only omnibus allegations were made by the complainant. No specific date, time and place was mentioned in the complaint. Apart that, admittedly the marriage of complainant/respondent No. 1 and petitioner No. 1 was solemnized in the month of May, 1995 and present private complaint has been preferred on 18-06-2008 alleging therein that since the date of her marriage she was subjected to cruelty by her in-laws but during this long span of 13 years neither any complaint nor any FIR was lodged by respondent No. 1 against her in-laws. It is imperative to note that out of wedlock of complainant -Hemlata (PW-1) and petitioner No. 1, they are blessed with one son and daughter. From perusal of para 2 of statement of Mahavir Jain (PW-3) it seems that as no amount has been spent by in-laws of Hemlata over her treatment and further nobody came at hospital from her matrimonial house, therefore, she got annoyed and might have filed this private complaint. 12. Keeping in view the above discussions and proposition of law and facts narrated above, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to invoke the inherent powers of this Court vested under Section 482 of the Code to prevent the abuse of process of law. Accordingly, petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 15-10-2008 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class whereby the cognizance for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC has been taken against the petitioners is hereby quashed and subsequent proceedings in the shape of Criminal Case No. 1892/2008 is also hereby quashed. Petitioners are discharged of the charges punishable under Section 498-A of IPC. 13. Copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for information and necessary compliance.