JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Paran Kumar Phukan, J. This is an application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing and setting aside the proceedings in C.R. Case No. 50c/2015 which is pending in the Court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (M), Gossaigaon. 2. The facts leading to the filing of the petition in brief is that the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 are the legally married couple and the marriage between them was solemnized in the year 2000 as per Muslim customs. As a result of their co-habitation, three children were born and the eldest son is aged about 14 years. For providing proper education to his children, the petitioner who is a teacher of Panijani Nepali Bathan L.P. School, Gossaigaon, who was residing permanently with his family at Rimijhimghat moved over to a rented house with his family to Saharghutu, a village situated near Rampur and started living there in a rented house. On 18.12.2014, his wife left for her parental house at village-Satbil on the pretext of giving some money to her brother and uncle and she was supposed to come back in the evening. But she did not come back to her house in the evening and in enquiry, the petitioner came to know from his father-in-law that his wife had not visited his house. In spite of his best efforts, the petitioner could not ascertain her whereabouts and having no alternative, he filed an FIR with the I/C, Simultapu outpost. On the basis of that FIR, G.D. entry No. 460 dated 19.12.2014 was made and the I/C of the outpost issued a police report to the petitioner in this regard. Subsequently, the petitioner came to know from the co-villagers that his wife had eloped with one Nur Alom Sheikh and was staying with him in New Delhi. On getting this information, he lodged another FIR before police on 02.01.2015 against his wife and Nur Alom Sheikh which has been registered as Gossaigaon P.S. Case No. 04/2015. 3. Soon thereafter, “a mel” was held in the village to discuss the matter where the father of said Nur Alom Sheikh was present and he gave a statement to the effect that his son Nur Alom Sheikh was missing from his house and he had come to know that he was staying in Delhi with the wife of the petitioner. Soon thereafter, “a mel” was held in the village to discuss the matter where the father of said Nur Alom Sheikh was present and he gave a statement to the effect that his son Nur Alom Sheikh was missing from his house and he had come to know that he was staying in Delhi with the wife of the petitioner. A number of persons who were present in the “mel” put their signatures in the proceedings and the village headman also issued a certificate in this regard. 4. The petitioner having no other alternative divorced his wife and accordingly talaqenama was prepared and it was communicated to the respondent No. 2 by registered post. 5. The respondent No. 2 after about ½ months came back to the house of per parents and filed a complaint before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gossaigaon alleging therein that she was tortured by the petitioner and his brother demanding dowry from her. On the basis of the complaint C.R. Case No. 50c/2015 has been registered and process was issued accordingly vide order dated 16.02.2015. 6. Being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gossaigaon, the petitioner has preferred this petition for quashing of the proceedings of C.R. Case No. 50c/2015 and consequential orders passed in connection with the aforesaid case. 7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the complaint case has been filed by the respondent No. 2 by suppressing material facts and the respondent No. 2 with a view to absolve herself from criminal liability has filed the false complaint against the petitioner and his brother which is liable to quashed. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, on the other hand, submitted that due to mental and physical torture perpetrated by the petitioner and his brother, demanding dowry from her, she was compelled to file the complaint case against them. She denied that she eloped with Nur Alom Sheikh and stayed in Delhi with him. 9. Both the parties to the case filed affidavit in support of their respective cases. The petitioner apart from filing the affidavit also annexed with the petition the copies of the relevant documents referred to in his affidavit. Annexure-1, Missing Entry shows that it was filed on 18.12.2014 stating that the wife of the petitioner was missing from his house. 9. Both the parties to the case filed affidavit in support of their respective cases. The petitioner apart from filing the affidavit also annexed with the petition the copies of the relevant documents referred to in his affidavit. Annexure-1, Missing Entry shows that it was filed on 18.12.2014 stating that the wife of the petitioner was missing from his house. Annexure 1A is the report of the I/C, Simultapu outpost regarding the missing entry. Annexure-2 is the FIR filed by the petitioner against his wife and Nur Alom Sheikh alleging therein that his wife eloped with Nur Alom Sheikh and was staying in Delhi. On the basis of this FIR, Gossaigaon P.S. Case No. 04/2015 has been registered. Annexure-3 is the proceedings of the village “mel” held on 02.01.2015 for discussing the matter, wherein, the father of Nur Alom Sheikh admitted in writing that his son Nur Alom Sheikh was staying in Delhi with the wife of the petitioner. In the proceeding, a number of persons put their signatures. Annexure-3B is the certificate issued by the village headman certifying that the meeting was held in the village regarding elopement of the wife of the petitioner with Nur Alom Sheikh. Ext. 4 is the Talaqnama whereby the petitioner has divorced his wife. 10. The documents annexed with the petition satisfactorily established that the wife of the petitioner eloped with Nur Alom Sheikh and she was staying with him in Delhi as his wife in a rented house. Due to this reason, she has been divorced by the petitioner and Talaque was duly communicated to her. 11. The respondent No. 2, in her complaint before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate alleged that the petitioner and his elder brother from time to time demanded money from her and tortured her. But there is nothing to show that at any point of time, during her stay with her husband, she filed any complaint before any authority and there is also nothing to show that she ever informed such demands to her parents and other family members. 12. The learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, on the basis of the complaint and her statement recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and the statement of another witness recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. took cognizance against the accused petitioners and issued summons. 12. The learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, on the basis of the complaint and her statement recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and the statement of another witness recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. took cognizance against the accused petitioners and issued summons. On scrutiny of the complaint, I have found that she suppressed the actual facts from the Court and managed to obtain the order. 13. The principal question which came up for consideration before this court is whether the complaint filed by the respondent No. 2 against her husband and elder brother is liable to be quashed in exercise of the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The principles of law to be followed while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is no longer res-integra. The grounds on which the proceedings initiated against an accused can be quashed by the High Court in exercise of power conferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been settled by a catena decision of the Apex Court. The High Court has the power to quash an FIR or a complaint subject to certain condition laid down by the Supreme Court in various judgments. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Apex Court gave the following categories of cases wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of process of court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. “(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 cognisable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the un-controverted 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. (3) Where the un-controverted 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 cognisable offence but constitute only a non-cognisable 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 ever 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 the code or the Act concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifest attended with malafide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 14. While handing down the judgment in Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal reported in (2007) 12 SCC 1 , the Supreme Court comprehensively examined the legal position and the relevant observations of the court are reproduced below:- “24. Inherent powers under Section 482 though wide have to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in this section itself. Authority of the court exists for the advancement of justice. If any abuse of the process leading to injustice is brought to the notice of the court, them the court would be justified in preventing injustice by invoking inherent powers in absence of specific provisions in the statute.” 15. The Apex Court in Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre reported in (1988) 1 SCC 692 observed in paragraph 7 as follows:- “7. The Apex Court in Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre reported in (1988) 1 SCC 692 observed in paragraph 7 as follows:- “7. The legal position is well settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the court is as to whether the un-controverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence it is also for the court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to a prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis that the court cannot be utilised for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the court chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the court any while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage.” 16. From the observations and the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the various cases referred to above, it is amply clear that if a complaint is filed with malafide or it is maliciously instituted with ulterior motive to take revenge on the accused the court would have justification to quash the complaint in exercise of the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 17. Keeping in mind the above observations of the Supreme Court I have minutely gone through the complaint filed by the complainant. Obviously she was not in a position to go to her husband's house and the only place left for her to take shelter was the house of her parents. She must have come to know about the cases filed against her by her husband and it is not difficult to presume that to absolve herself from criminal prosecution, she filed the complaint against her husband and his elder brother alleging that they tortured her demanding dowry. She was staying with her husband for about 15 years and during the entire period there was no allegation before any authority or even before her parents that hey tortured her demanding dowry from her. 18. She was staying with her husband for about 15 years and during the entire period there was no allegation before any authority or even before her parents that hey tortured her demanding dowry from her. 18. It is a matter of grave concern that nowadays large numbers of complaints are filed with malafide intention to take revenge on the husband and his relatives and the Courts before whom such complaints are filed are required to be more careful and circumspect before taking cognizance on the basis of such frivolous complaints. The Court should not only examine the complainant but also insist for production and examination of her parents and other relatives including neighbours to ascertain the actual facts. 19. The Apex Court also expressed concern for filing of false and frivolous complaints against the husband and his relatives which has been reflected in the case of Preeti Gupta and Another v. State of Jharkhand and Anther reported in (2010) 7 SCC 667 , wherein the Apex Court observed as follows:- “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 time, 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.” 20. In the present case, the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate before taking cognizance ought to have examined her parents and other relatives and even her neighbours to ascertain the truth. It is the duty of the court to ascertain that the husband and his relatives are not harassed unnecessarily by the wife by filing such concocted cases and all precautionary measures must be taken by the Court before taking cognizance. 21. It is the duty of the court to ascertain that the husband and his relatives are not harassed unnecessarily by the wife by filing such concocted cases and all precautionary measures must be taken by the Court before taking cognizance. 21. In the case in hand it is evident that the wife eloped with another person and lived with him for certain period in Delhi as his wife which compelled her husband to file criminal cases against her. It is also evident that as a retaliatory measure she filed the complaint against her husband and his elder brother. The Court as far as practicable before taking cognizance, should not only examine the complainant but also other witnesses including her relatives to ensure whether any such offence has been committed by the husband or his relatives. Filing of the complaint by the wife in the instant case was a clear abuse of the process of Court and by allowing the trial to continue on the basis of such complaint would tantamount to denial of justice to the husband and his brother. 22. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having regard to the facts and circumstances and for all the reasons as discussed above, I am of the view that the proceedings pertaining to Complaint Case No. 50c/2015 is liable to be quashed in exercise of power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. which I accordingly do. All consequential orders arising out of the aforesaid case are also quashed. Send down the LCR along with a copy of the judgment for information and necessary action.