ORDER : 1. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been preferred u/s 482 Cr.P.C. to quash and set aside an order dated 21.4.2016 passed by learned Special Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (P.C.P.N.D.T. Act Cases), Ajmer in Regular Cr. Case No.61/2015 arising out of FIR No.56/2014, Police Station Mahila Thana, Ajmer, whereby on the progress report submitted by SHO in compliance of order dated 27.10.2015 passed by learned Magistrate, cognizance for offence u/s 498-A, 406 IPC and 419 IPC against petitioners - Beerpal Singh, Smt. Kasturi Devi @ Saroj and Yogendra and cognizance for offence u/s 419 IPC, in addition to 498A and 406 IPC, against co-accused Rahul was taken and petitioners were directed to be called for by summons. It has also been prayed in the petition that the entire criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No.56/2014, P.S. Mahila Thana, Ajmer pending against the petitioners be quashed and set aside. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that private respondent No.2 Smt. Pooja submitted a complaint on 5.2.2014 for offence u/s 498A, 406, 120B IPC read with sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, before learned Special Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, (PCPNDT Act Cases) Ajmer against her husband - Rahul Bhati, father-in-law - Beerpal Singh Bhati, mother-in-law - Smt. Kasturi Devi, brothers-in-law - Yogendra Singh Bhati, Krishna Bhati and Dharmendra Bhati along with his wife Smt. Sonia Bhati, in all 7 persons. The complaint was forwarded u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation to SHO, Mahila Thana, Ajmer, whereupon FIR No. 56/2014 was registered. 3. During investigation, husband Rahul Bhati was granted anticipatory bail by learned District & Sessions Judge, Ajmer. Private respondent No.2 moved an application u/s 439 (2) Cr.P.C. for cancellation of anticipatory bail before this court. A co-ordinate Bench of this court vide order dated 27.7.2015 cancelled the anticipatory bail granted to Rahul Bhati. Meanwhile, after completion of investigation, police submitted chargesheet against Rahul Bhati only for offence u/s 498A and 406 IPC. Rahul Bhati was granted regular bail by learned trial court. 4. Thereafter, private respondent No.2, Smt. Pooja moved an application dated 5.8.2015 before learned trial court with a prayer that in compliance of order dated 20.7.2015 passed by the High Court whereby anticipatory bail granted to Rahul Bhati was cancelled, his bail be cancelled and after arresting him, to direct police to conduct investigation from an independent Investigating Officer on the points raised therein. Learned trial court disposed of this application after hearing both the parties vide order dated 27.10.2015. Learned Magistrate observed that since chargesheet has been submitted, order for re-investigation cannot be passed. Bail granted to husband Rahul Bhati has not been cancelled by any court so Rahul cannot be arrested. However, it was directed to police to further investigate in the matter on certain points and submit immediately a report before the court. 5. On 21.4.2016, SHO, Police Station Mahila Thana, Ajmer submitted a report dated 2.2.2016 with regard to further investigation, stating inter alia that in compliance of order dated 27.10.2015, supplementary statements of Kiran Devi and Kushal Pal Singh u/s 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded. Documents submitted by Pooja were taken on record. Accused were given notice u/s 41-A Cr.P.C. and directed to produce all the goods of dowry/Stridhan. Statements of other witnesses were also recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. After investigation, it has been found that Pooja was subjected to cruelty for demand of dowry by Rahul, Beerpal Singh, Smt Kasturi @ Saroj and Yogendra. They have misappropriated the Stridhan and dowry of Pooja as well. While misrepresenting Rahool as having MBBS degree, under deception, mother of Pooja solemnised marriage of Pooja with Rahul. Thus, against Rahul offence u/s 419 IPC is also made out. Beerpal Singh, Kasturi @ Saroj and Yogendra are found to have committed offence u/s 498A, 406 and 419 IPC. On this report dated 2.2.2016, learned trial court passed the impugned order on 21.4.2016. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that learned Magistrate has committed serious error of law as well as fact in taking cognizance of offence u/s 498A, 406 and 419 IPC. No such offence is made out against the petitioners from the evidence and other material available on record. After investigation, police submitted chargessheet against Rahul only. As per that chargesheet, no offence, whatsoever, was made out against the petitioners. Learned trial court in a mechanical manner disagreed with the sound conclusion drawn by the Investigating Officer and directed further investigation which has led to complete failure of justice. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that learned Magistrate has erroneously taken cognizance against the petitioners on the basis of progress report which is not a formal supplementary police report in accordance with section 173(2) Cr.P.C. 8. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that learned Magistrate has erroneously taken cognizance against the petitioners on the basis of progress report which is not a formal supplementary police report in accordance with section 173(2) Cr.P.C. 8. Learned counsel also submits that husband Rahul Bhati is Bachelor of Physiotherapy (BPT) from Allahabad Agricultural Institute-Deemed University at Allahabad and as per Indian Association of Physiotherapy, he is entitled to put “Doctor” before his name. In support of his contention, a copy of the degree (Annexure-7) has been annexed with the petition. 9. A bare perusal of complaint, the basis of FIR reveals that the allegations against the petitioners are of general nature. Nothing specific has been attributed to any particular accused. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that during further investigation, statements have been recorded of relatives of the petitioners who are having enmity with the petitioners and with whom petitioners are in litigation - civil and criminal. Petitioners are close relatives of the husband and only because of this reason, they have been falsely implicated in the present case. Petitioners never reside along with complainant and her husband Rahul. This fact finds mention in FIR itself. It is settled position of law that merely because of relations with the husband, father, mother and brother should not be prosecuted. Before taking cognizance against such persons, court should assign sound reasons. In support, learned counsel placed reliance on Preeti Gupta & Another Vs. State of Jharkhand & Another 2010 AIR (SC) 3363, Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. 2013 AIR (SC) 181 and Rajiv Thapar & Ors. Vs. Madan Lal Kapoor 2013 (1) Crimes (SC) 169. 11. Learned counsel further submits that not only the petitioners but even the husband of the complainant never harassed the complainant for demand of dowry. No cruelty, whatsoever, has ever been committed with the complainant. On the contrary, true and correct facts are that complainant used to remain always busy on her mobile phone, even in night also. Husband tried to enquire into, but without response from her. In June, 2014, complainant told her husband that she was going to Bangalore for computer training. However, on enquiry, she was not found at Bangalore but at some other place. On knowing this, husband immediately contacted her mother-in-law, residing at Ballabhgarh and complained about the misconduct and misbehaviour of Pooja. Husband tried to enquire into, but without response from her. In June, 2014, complainant told her husband that she was going to Bangalore for computer training. However, on enquiry, she was not found at Bangalore but at some other place. On knowing this, husband immediately contacted her mother-in-law, residing at Ballabhgarh and complained about the misconduct and misbehaviour of Pooja. Whereupon, she lodged a false and fabricated complaint against husband Rahul before DCP, Ballabhgarh. In that complaint, she did not utter a single word about harassment for demand of dowry. On this complaint, statements of Kiran Devi and husband Rahul were recorded and ultimately final report was submitted to the effect that due to some misunderstanding the complaint was filed. 12. Learned counsel further submits that even after this incident, the complainant did not give any response to her husband and was reluctant to perform her matrimonial obligation, rather she always remained engaged with other person. When petitioner Beerpal Singh along with his son went to Ajmer to meet the complainant, they were not allowed to do so. A complaint in this regard was filed before Director General of C.R.P.F., New Delhi who in turn, forwarded it to I.G., C.R.P.F., Rajasthan and directed him to take necessary action. 13. Learned counsel submits that petitioner Beerpal Singh submitted a complaint to SHO, Police Station Suraj-Kund, Faridabad with regard to threats received by him through Mobile No.8989021290. On enquiry, it was found that this mobile number belongs to Surendra Negi, an ASI in C.R.P.F., Ajmer where the complainant is presently posted. 14. Learned counsel further submits that present FIR has been lodged with mala fide intention to harass the petitioners, the family members of husband Rahul. The FIR is nothing except a counter blast of the complaint made by husband of the complainant before the authority concerned. Learned Magistrate ignoring all these facts and without any basis, directed police to investigate further and took cognizance merely on a progress report submitted by police. 15. Lastly, learned counsel submits that an application for quashing criminal proceedings including FIR qua petitioners u/s 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be dismissed merely on the ground that there exists an alternative remedy i.e. revision petition u/s 397 Cr.P.C. He has relied upon Dhariwal Tobaco Products Ltd. and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and another 2009 AIR (SC) 1032. 16. 15. Lastly, learned counsel submits that an application for quashing criminal proceedings including FIR qua petitioners u/s 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be dismissed merely on the ground that there exists an alternative remedy i.e. revision petition u/s 397 Cr.P.C. He has relied upon Dhariwal Tobaco Products Ltd. and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and another 2009 AIR (SC) 1032. 16. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor submits that learned Magistrate has rightly taken cognizance on the report submitted by police after further investigation. The so-called “progress report”, in fact, contains all the particulars and details required to be mentioned in 'Police Report'. Thus, cognizance taken on such report cannot be termed as illegal. 17. Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that FIR was registered on 10.2.2014. The prayer for quashing the same has been preferred after a lapse of about two years. The material collected by police during investigation and further investigation is sufficient enough to proceed ahead against the petitioners. Veracity of the evidence collected by police cannot be tested at this stage. It is not a case of abuse of process of court. 18. Learned counsel for the complainant respondent No.2 submits that instead of availing statutory remedy u/s 397 Cr.P.C., the petitioners have approached this court to invoke its inherent jurisdiction. The order of cognizance cannot be challened u/s 482 Cr.P.C. He has relied on Vipin Gupta & Anr. Vs. Sate of Raj. & Anr. , 2009 (3) WLC (Raj.) 679. 19. I have considered rival submissions and gone through all the material available on record. 20. The instant petition has been preferred u/s 482 Cr.P.C. with following prayers :- “It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Misc. Petition may kindly be allowed, and the impugned order dated 21.4.2016 passed by the learned Magistrate may kindly be quashed and set aside and the entire criminal proceedings arising out of the F.I.R. 56/2014 registered at police station Mahila Thana, Ajmer pending against the present petitioners may kindly be quashed and set aside; and Any other appropriate order which this Hon'ble court may deem fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners.” 21. In Dhariwal Tobaco's case (supra), Apex Court has observed as under : “8. Indisputably issuance of summons is not an interlocutory order within the meaning of Section 397 of the Code. In Dhariwal Tobaco's case (supra), Apex Court has observed as under : “8. Indisputably issuance of summons is not an interlocutory order within the meaning of Section 397 of the Code. This Court in a large number of decisions beginning from R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 to Som Mittal v. Govt. of Karnataka, [ (2008) 3 SCC 574 ] has laid down the criterion for entertaining an application under Section 482 . Only because a revision petition is maintainable, the same by itself, in our considered opinion, would not constitute a bar for entertaining an application under Section 482 of the Code.” 22. Moreover, in the instant matter, the prayer is not only with regard to the impugned order dated 21.4.2016 passed by learned trial court with regard to taking cognizance and calling the petitioners by summons, but also to quash and set aside the entire criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No.56/2014, Police Station Mahila Thana, Ajmer, qua the petitioners. Thus, the maintainability of the present petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C., no more remains res integra. 23. Since cognizance has been taken against the present petitioners and they have been summoned by order dated 21.4.2016 and the instant petition has been preferred on 30.5.2016, delay cannot be attributed in preferring the petition. 24. Section 190, Code of Criminal Procedure, provides for cognizance of an offence by magistrate. The magistrate, as described in Section 190(1) may take cognizance of any offence in three different manners; (a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence; (b) upon a police report of such facts; (c) upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge, that such offence has been committed. The expression 'police report' has been defined in Section 2(r) of the Code to mean a report forwarded by a police officer to a magistrate under sub -section (2) of Section 173. 25. The expression 'police report' has been defined in Section 2(r) of the Code to mean a report forwarded by a police officer to a magistrate under sub -section (2) of Section 173. 25. Section 173(2)(i) provides that on completion of the investigation the police officer investigating into a cognizable offence shall submit a report in the form prescribed by the State Government stating therein (a) the names of the parties; (b) the nature of the information; (c) the names of the persons who appear to be acquainted with the circumstances of the case; (d) whether any offence appears to have been committed and, if so, by whom (e) whether the accused has been arrested; (f) whether he has been released on his bond and, if so, whether with or without sureties; (g) whether he has been forwarded in custody under Section 170 and (h) whether the report of medical examination of the woman has been attached where investigation relates to an offence under section 376, 376A, 376B, 376C, 376D or 376E of the Indian Penal Code. 26. While considering the nature and ambit of 'Police Report', Apex Court has observed in Satya Narain Musadi and Others Vs. State of Bihar, (1980) 3 SCC 152 as follows : “10. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Therefore, the statutory requirement of the report under Section 173(2) would be complied with if the various details therein prescribed are included in the report. This report is an intimation to the magistrate that upon investigation into a cognizable offence the investigating officer has been able to procure sufficient evidence for the Court to inquire into the offence and the necessary information is being sent to the Court. In fact, the report under Section 173(2) purports to be an opinion of the investigating officer that as far as he is concerned he has been able to procure sufficient evidence for the trial of the accused by the Court and when he states in the report not only the names of the accused, but names of the witnesses, the nature of the offence and a request that the case be tried, there is compliance with Section 173(2). The report as envisaged by Section 173(2) has to be accompanied as required by sub-section (5) by all the documents and statements of the witnesses therein mentioned. The report as envisaged by Section 173(2) has to be accompanied as required by sub-section (5) by all the documents and statements of the witnesses therein mentioned. One cannot divorce the details which the report must contain as required by sub-section (5) from its accompaniments which are required to be submitted under sub-section (5). 27. In view of the above, if the so-called progress report dated 2.2.2016 (Annex. - 5 of the petition) is examined, it is found that it is addressed to the trial Magistrate and submitted by SHO, Police Station Mahila Thana, Ajmer. In the column “subject”, it has been mentioned as follows : “With regard to the progress report after further investigation in Case No.61/2015, State Vs. Rahul Kumar” 28. Otherwise nowhere words 'progress report' finds place in this report. On the contrary, last line of this communication is as follows :- “Therefore, report of further investigation is submitted.” 29. This report contains all the informations required to be furnished in a 'police report' u/s 173(2), Cr.P.C. Along with this report, about 19 documents have been attached as enclosures, which include statements and supplementary statements of witnesses recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C., photographs, wedding card and other documents , bonds of witnesses u/s 170 Cr.P.C. for appearance in the court and notice u/s 41-A Cr.P.C. issued to the petitioners. 30. A bare perusal of all these documents and the report dated 2.2.2016 submitted by SHO before trial magistrate, it reveals that the report dated 2.2.2016 is, in fact, a police report as envisaged u/s 173(2) Cr.P.C. though it may not be in proforma prescribed by State Government. The impugned order dated 21.4.2016 has been passed by learned trial court on the basis of this report dated 2.2.2016. I find no illegality in passing the order dated 21.4.2016 u/s 190(1)(b), Cr.P.C. based upon the report dated 2.2.2016 submitted by police after further investigation. 31. Now, it is to be examined as to whether the material provided along with the police report dated 2.2.2016 is insufficient for taking cognizance against the petitioners and whether continuance of the criminal proceedings initiated on the basis of FIR No.56/2014 will amount to abuse of process of court. 32. In State of Haryana & Others Vs. Bhajan Lal & Others, 1992 Supp. 32. In State of Haryana & Others Vs. Bhajan Lal & Others, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, the Apex Court in the backdrop of interpretation of various relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by the Supreme Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or the inherent powers under section 482 Cr. P.C. gave following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of the court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Though the court made it clear that it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list to myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised: “(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or 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 a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156 (1) of Cr.P.C. except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155 (2) Cr.P.C. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155 (2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can even reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can even reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of Cr.P.C. or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in Cr.P.C. or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused an d with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 33. In Preeti Gupta's case (supra), the Apex Court has observed as follows : “17. The powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. The court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution but court's failing to use the power for advancement of justice can also lead to grave injustice. The High Court should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where all the facts are incomplete and hazy; more so, when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of such magnitude that they cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceedings at any stage. 34. In a matter of matrimonial dispute in Geeta Mehrotra's case (supra), the Apex court has further observed as follows : 24. Of course, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceedings at any stage. 34. In a matter of matrimonial dispute in Geeta Mehrotra's case (supra), the Apex court has further observed as follows : 24. However, we deem it appropriate to add by way of caution that we may not be misunderstood so as to infer that even if there are allegation of overt act indicating the complicity of the members of the family named in the FIR in a given case, cognizance would be unjustified but what we wish to emphasize by highlighting is that, if the FIR as it stands 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 named accused in the FIR to undergo the trial unless of course the 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 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. Simultaneously, the courts are expected to adopt a cautious approach in matters of quashing specially in cases of matrimonial dispute whether the FIR in fact discloses commission of an offence by the relatives of the principal accused or the FIR prima facie discloses a case of over-implication by involving the entire family of the accused at the instance of the complainant, who is out to settle her scores arising out of the teething problem or skirmish of domestic bickering while settling down in her new matrimonial surrounding. 35. The observations made in Rajiv Thapar & Ors. Vs. Madan lal Kapoor, 2013 1 Crimes (SC) 169 by the Apex Court are also apt for decision of this case :- “21. The High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C., must make a just and rightful choice. 35. The observations made in Rajiv Thapar & Ors. Vs. Madan lal Kapoor, 2013 1 Crimes (SC) 169 by the Apex Court are also apt for decision of this case :- “21. The High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C., must make a just and rightful choice. This is not a stage of evaluating the truthfulness or otherwise of allegations levelled by the prosecution/complainant against the accused. Likewise, it is not a stage for determining how weighty the defences raised on behalf of the accused is. Even if the accused is successful in showing some suspicion or doubt, in the allegations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, it would be impermissible to discharge the accused before trial. This is so, because it would result in giving finality to the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, without allowing the prosecution or the complainant to adduce evidence to substantiate the same. The converse is, however, not true, because even if trial is proceeded with, the accused is not subjected to any irreparable consequences. The accused would still be in a position to succeed, by establishing his defences by producing evidence in accordance with law. There is an endless list of judgments rendered by this Court declaring the legal position, that in a case where the prosecution/complainant has levelled allegations bringing out all ingredients of the charges levelled, and have placed material before the Court, prima facie evidencing the truthfulness of the allegations levelled, trial must be held. 22. The issue being examined in the instant case is the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., if it chooses to quash the initiation of the prosecution against an accused, at the stage of issuing process, or at the stage of committal, or even at the stage of framing of charges. These are all stages before the commencement of the actual trial. The same parameters would naturally be available for later stages as well. The power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C., at the stages referred to hereinabove, would have far reaching consequences, inasmuch as, it would negate the prosecution's/complainant's case without allowing the prosecution/complainant to lead evidence. Such a determination must always be rendered with caution, care and circumspection. To invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C., at the stages referred to hereinabove, would have far reaching consequences, inasmuch as, it would negate the prosecution's/complainant's case without allowing the prosecution/complainant to lead evidence. Such a determination must always be rendered with caution, care and circumspection. To invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C. the High Court has to be fully satisfied, that the material produced by the accused is such, that would lead to the conclusion, that his/their defence is based on sound, reasonable, and indubitable facts; the material produced is such, as would rule out and displace the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused; and the material produced is such, as would clearly reject and overrule the veracity of the allegations contained in the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant. It should be sufficient to rule out, reject and discard the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, without the necessity of recording any evidence. For this the material relied upon by the defence should not have been refuted, or alternatively, cannot be justifiably refuted, being material of sterling and impeccable quality. The material relied upon by the accused should be such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the actual basis of the accusations as false. In such a situation, the judicial conscience of the High Court would persuade it to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C. to quash such criminal proceedings, for that would prevent abuse of process of the court, and secure the ends of justice.” 36. In the instant matter, police, after initiation of investigation, submitted chargesheet dated 21.5.2015 only against husband - Rahul Bhati. On submission of the police report, complainant Pooja filed a protest petition dated 5.8.2015 before learned trial court and requested to direct Investigating Officer to further investigate into the matter. On this request, learned Magistrate passed an order on 27.10.2015 and directed SHO, Police Station Mahila Thana, Ajmer to conduct further investigation and submit the report immediately. There is no positive conclusion in police report dated 21.5.2015 that no case is made out against the present petitioners. The order dated 27.10.2015 passed by learned trial court is not under challenge before me. There is no positive conclusion in police report dated 21.5.2015 that no case is made out against the present petitioners. The order dated 27.10.2015 passed by learned trial court is not under challenge before me. However, the order passed with regard to further investigation is found to be in accordance with the powers available to the magistrate u/s 172(2) Cr.P.C. and power of monitoring investigation available to him as underlined by the Apex Court in Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. , (2008) 2 SCC 409 . 37. The complaint on the basis of which FIR in the instant matter has been registered, was filed against Rahul Bhati (husband) and petitioners along with three more near relatives of the husband. It has been mentioned in para 2 of the complaint that the husband Rahul Bhati and brother Yogendra Singh live at Faridabad, whereas parents of Rahul Bhati live at village Rammani (Bulandshahar). It has also been mentioned that all the accused used to visit each others place and stay together as well. It has been mentioned in para 4 of the complaint that just after marriage, complainant was taken to village Rammani (Bulandshahar) and she lived there for about 30 days. During that period, all the accused used to tease/comment upon the dowry given by her parents. They used to humiliate her on this count before neighbours and other relatives. When she went Ajmer on 3.6.2013 to join her duties, she was asked within fifteen days thereof, to reach at her in-laws house in the village. She was cursed by parents of her husband for not bringing a car in dowry. She was asked to bring Rs.5,00,000/- and a car immediately. When she told them that looking to her parents' economic condition it is not possible to arrange immediately such a huge amount, she was abused by Rahul and his parents and subjected to mental cruelty. In para 9 of the complaint, she has also stated that parents of her husband asked her mother to direct her to give complete salary to them. For this, husband also quarreled with her at the place of her posting. As per paras 11 and 12 of the complaint, she stayed at the house of her in- laws at Faridabad for ten days, where also she was subjected to cruelty and harassment. For this, husband also quarreled with her at the place of her posting. As per paras 11 and 12 of the complaint, she stayed at the house of her in- laws at Faridabad for ten days, where also she was subjected to cruelty and harassment. Thereafter, her husband came to the place of her working, there also, he demanded money, car & salary and threatened of any untoward incident with her. In para 17, it has been stated that on dictate of other accused, her husband along with brothers Yogendra Singh and Krishna Bhati went to her mother's place. Several times to exert pressure for fulfillment of his demand. As per para 21, Rahul Bhati and Beerpal Singh reached at Ajmer on 25.1.2014. When they were not permitted to enter in her work place by security persons, they created hue and cry there also. 38. A bare perusal of the complaint reveals that it is not devoid of allegations against the petitioners. Certain overt-acts have specifically been attributed to the petitioners. 39. So far as the statements and supplementary statements recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. are concerned, it reveals from these statements that the petitioners and Rahul Bhati though living at two different places, yet they used to visit each others place and stay together. Whenever the complainant used to visit these places, petitioners along with husband Rahul Bhati used to harass her for meeting out their illegal demand of dowry. In supplementary statements of Kiran Devi, mother of the complainant, she has specifically alleged against petitioner Yogendra Singh. 40. During further investigation, police recorded statements not only of complainant, her mother and maternal uncle, but also recorded statements of neighbourers of matrimonial house of the complainant in the village Rammani. After reading of these statements, it cannot be said that no evidence is available against the petitioners. From perusal of the documents submitted by the petitioners, it appears that there is a land dispute between the petitioners and the persons of village Rammani, who have deposed before police against the petitioners. Both - Civil and criminal proceedings are pending between petitioners and the said persons of village Rammani and enmity between them cannot be ruled out. But only on the basis of enmity, statements given by such persons of village Rammani before police cannot be disbelieved on this stage. Veracity of their statements can be tested only during trial. 41. Both - Civil and criminal proceedings are pending between petitioners and the said persons of village Rammani and enmity between them cannot be ruled out. But only on the basis of enmity, statements given by such persons of village Rammani before police cannot be disbelieved on this stage. Veracity of their statements can be tested only during trial. 41. From perusal of other documents submitted by the petitioners, it also appears that prior to lodging of the instant FIR, husband Rahul Bhati made certain complaints against the complainant before SHO, Police Station Surajkund, wherein he alleged a threat from a colleague of his wife. He also made a complaint to C.R.P.F. authorities for not permitting him and his father to meet his wife by the security persons at Ajmer. In my opinion, these documents may provide a defence to the petitioners against the alleged charges. But on the basis of these documents, it cannot be construed that continuance of criminal proceedings against the petitioners, based on FIR No. 56/2014 will amount to abuse of process of court. Copy of degree of Bachelor of Physiotherapy submitted by the petitioner may also provide defence that Rahul or the petitioners did not deceive the complainant, rather, in fact, Rahul Bhati is a qualified doctor. 42. After perusal of all the material available on record and considering the submissions made by the petitioners, the instant matter cannot be said to be devoid of allegations of overt-act indicating the complicity of the members of the family i.e. petitioners. At this juncture of the proceedings, uncontroverted allegations against the petitioners, available in the material on record, are found to be sufficient for continuance of the proceedings. It is not a fit case where abuse of process of court is reflected so as to invoke inherent jurisdiction vested in this court. 43. Therefore, the petition stands dismissed.