ORDER : In this application, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Sidhgora P.S. Case No. 194 of 2010, including the order dated 23.08.2014, passed by Shri M.K. Tripathy, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Jamshedpur, whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken for the offence punishable under sections 498A/494 of the Indian Penal Code and ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. An FIR was instituted by the opposite party no. 2, in which it was stated that her marriage was solemnized with Manish Kumar on 18.05.2003 in accordance with Hindu Rites & Customs. Since the husband of the petitioner was working at Dr. Reddy’s Laboratory at Patna, she had started living with her husband at Patna. It is alleged that in September, 2004, he switched to ICICI Bank , Durgapur in the post of Collection Manager and during this period he had developed relationship with the petitioner no. 3. On 22.08.2005, the informant was blessed with a female child at Jamshedpur and thereafter the behavior of her husband had changed and he had started mental and physically torture upon her. It is alleged that there was a demand of Rs. Two lacs from the father of the informant, who refused to pay the said amount. The husband of the informant subsequently left Durgapur and went to Guwahati where he joined Tata Motor Finance Company, which job was also left by him and he subsequently joined HDFC Bank and thereafter Vodafone, where he is at present working as Credit and Collection Head. It is alleged that when the informant went with her daughter to the flat of her husband, the presence of an unknown lady was found and on being asked about the relationship, she was abused with filthy language and was driven out from the house. It is alleged that the parents in law were asked for assistance by the informant, which they refused. When the informant was admitted at T.MH. Hospital Jamshedpur on 13.10.2000, neither her inlaws nor her husband had enquired about her well being. 3. Based on the aforesaid allegations, Sidhgora P.S. Case No. 194 of 2010 was instituted. It is alleged that the parents in law were asked for assistance by the informant, which they refused. When the informant was admitted at T.MH. Hospital Jamshedpur on 13.10.2000, neither her inlaws nor her husband had enquired about her well being. 3. Based on the aforesaid allegations, Sidhgora P.S. Case No. 194 of 2010 was instituted. Upon conducting an investigation, charge sheet was submitted by the police on 31.05.2012 for the offence punishable under sections 498(A)/494 of the Indian Penal Code and under section ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act only against the husband of the informant and the petitioners were not sent up for trial. Subsequently on conducting further investigation, chargesheet was submitted against the petitioner nos.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code and against petitioner no. 3 for the offences punishable under sections 498A/494 of the Indian Penal Code. Pursuant to submission of chargesheet, cognizance was taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Jamshedpur vide order dated 23.08.2014. 4. Heard Mr. B.M. Tripathy, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Hardeo Prasad Singh, learned A.P.P. and Mr. A.K. Yadav, learned counsel appearing for O.P. No. 2. 5. It has been submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that on investigation, the case against the petitioners were not found proved and only at the behest of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kolhan, Chaibasa, further investigation was ordered, which led to submission of chargesheet against the petitioners. It has further been submitted that even in the FIR the petitioner no. 3 was not made an accused and the FIR was instituted only against the husband of the informant as well as her inlaws. It has also been submitted that after the chargesheet was submitted only against the husband of the informant no protest petition was filed by the informant and on her application, further investigation was ordered leading to submission of chargesheet , which is not in accordance with the settled principles of law. Learned senior counsel submits that so far as petitioner no. 1 and 2 are concerned, no allegation has been levelled against them with respect to any demand of dowry or any torture meted out by them. So far as petitioner no. Learned senior counsel submits that so far as petitioner no. 1 and 2 are concerned, no allegation has been levelled against them with respect to any demand of dowry or any torture meted out by them. So far as petitioner no. 3 is concerned, learned senior counsel submits that she is the second wife of the husband of the informant and Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code is not applicable in the case of petitioner no. 3 in absence of Section 109 or Section 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. Learned senior counsel adds that the petitioner no. 3 cannot be by friction of law dragged in the case. It has, therefore, been submitted that taking into consideration the nature of allegations levelled against the petitioners, the entire criminal proceedings as against them deserves to be quashed and set aside. 6. Mr. Hardeo Prasad Singh, learned A.P.P., has submitted that on 9.1.2014, further investigation was ordered by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kolhan, Chaibasa under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. and upon investigation and on recoding the statement of some of the witnesses, which finds place at paras 14, 17 and 27 of the case diary, chargesheet was rightly submitted against the petitioners. 7. Mr. A.K. Yadav, learned counsel for O.P. No. 2, has submitted that petitioner nos. 1 and 2 had ignored the complainant/informant and had not taken any steps to prevent the husband of the informant to solemnize marriage for the second time. It has been submitted that the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 also did not take any step for rehabilitation of the informant and for settling the marital discord between the informant and son of petitioner nos. 1 and 2. It has further been submitted that petitioner no. 3 has been nominated as a wife in various documents and in such circumstances, the petitioner no. 3 is also liable to face the trial in view of her culpability in commission of the offence. 8. The FIR, which has been instituted, does not reveal any allegation of demand of dowry or physical and mental torture upon the informant by the petitioner for such non fulfillment of dowry. The entire allegation in the FIR is concentrated upon the husband of the informant and his second marriage with the petitioner no. 3. 8. The FIR, which has been instituted, does not reveal any allegation of demand of dowry or physical and mental torture upon the informant by the petitioner for such non fulfillment of dowry. The entire allegation in the FIR is concentrated upon the husband of the informant and his second marriage with the petitioner no. 3. Merely because the parents in law of the informant had not taken any step on her complain of her husband marrying for the second time as well as torture meted out to her and not having visited the hospital where she was admitted, does not and cannot make out a case under section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code so far as petitioner nos. 1 and 2 are concerned. Their inaction in assisting the informant to iron out her difference with her husband would by no stretch of imagination can be said to be a criminal offence committed by them. It appears that petitioner nos. 1 and 2 have been implicated only because of the fact that they are the parents in law of the informant. Absence of any allegation and subsequent absence of any culpability of petitioner nos. 1 and 2 has been reflected in the first chargesheet when they were not sent up for trial. Although cognizance was taken pursuant to submission of first chargesheet, the informant never chose to file a protest petition but made an application before the Deputy Inspector General of Police and at whose instance further investigation was carried out and without there being any fresh materials to suggest the complicity of petitioner nos. 1 and 2, second charge sheet was submitted. 9. In the case of Preeti Gupta Vs. State of Jharkhand, reported in 2012 (2) EastCrC 34 (SC) : (2010) 7 SCC 667 , while considering the recent trends of implicating inlaws, it was held as follows:- “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. 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”. 10. In view of what has been discussed above, criminal prosecution against the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 if allowed to continue, shall be an abuse of the process of Court. 11. So far as petitioner nos. 3 is concerned, she is alleged to be the second wife of Manish-the husband of the informant. The petitioner nos. 3 was never arrayed as an accused in the FIR and there is no whisper about her involvement in the first chargesheet submitted by the police. In the second chargesheet, she has been implicated for the offences punishable under section 498A, 494 of the Indian Penal Code. Mr. B.M. Tripathy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that section 494 IPC in absence of any allegation that petitioner no. 3 was earlier married to some other person, no case under section 494 IPC can lie against the petitioner no. 3. A person is said to have committed an offence under section 494 IPC if he has married again during lifetime of a husband or wife. There is no iota of allegation much less any evidence to suggest that the petitioner no. 3 was a married lady prior to her solemnization of marriage with the husband of the informant. Section 494, therefore, would not be applicable so far petitioner no. 3 is concerned. As regards Section 498A IPC is concerned, the petitioner no. 3 cannot be made an accused as there is no allegation to constitute an offence under section 498A IPC. The petitioner no. Section 494, therefore, would not be applicable so far petitioner no. 3 is concerned. As regards Section 498A IPC is concerned, the petitioner no. 3 cannot be made an accused as there is no allegation to constitute an offence under section 498A IPC. The petitioner no. 3 seems to have been dragged in the present case as an after thought as she was nowhere in the picture when the investigation into the allegations were carried out by the police. No fresh materials having been accumulated by the police to suggest the commission of an offence under section 498A IPC against the petitioners, the charge sheet submitted subsequently seems to be only to rope in the petitioners to face trial. 12. In view of discussions made hereinabove, I find sufficient merits in this application. Accordingly this application is allowed and the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Sidhgora P.S. Case No. 194 of 2010, including the order dated 23.08.2014, passed by Shri M.K. Tripathy, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class Jamshedpur, whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken for the offence punishable under sections 498A, 494 of the Indian Penal Code and ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act, is hereby quashed and set aside so far as petitioners are concerned. Petition allowed.