JUDGMENT : 1. Shri Imtiaz Hussain, Advocate for the applicants. Shri Ramesh Kushwaha, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. None for the respondent No. 2 though served. With the consent of parties, matter is finally heard. This petition under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code has been filed seeking quashment of Criminal Case No. 89/2013 pending before J.M.F.C. Balaghat. 2. Facts giving rise to this petition, briefly stated, are that the marriage of applicant Tousif Khan was solemnized with respondent No. 2 Ruhina Khan (now no more) on 28-1-2012 and respondents No. 2 to 8 are close relatives of applicant No. 1 Tousif Khan. Deceased Ruhina Khan lodged an FIR against the applicants on 17-10-2012 at Police Station Kirnapur, District Balaghat, which was registered vide Crime No. 145/2012 for offences punishable under sections 498-A read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act alleging inter alia that only after three days of marriage, i.e. on 1-2-2012 all the applicants abused her in connection with demand of dowry and beaten her and her husband applicant No. 1 snatched away his mobile in order to prevent her talking with her parents and thereafter consistently demanded Rs. 5 lakhs and a car and threatened her to kill either by administering poison or by burning her by pouring kerosene oil on her. It is further alleged that on 29-2-2012 she came to her parental house where on 6-3-2012 applicant No. 1 and other applicants came and the applicant No. 1 again beaten her and asked to compel her father to give Rs. 5 Lakhs. At that time, her father gave Rs. 1.6 Lakhs to the applicant No. 1. Thereafter, the applicants constantly demanded Rs. 10 Lakhs and for that he harassed and tortured her. On 25-7-2012 she was sent to her parents house with a threat that if their demand is not fulfilled, the applicant No. 1 will give divorce to her. Since then she was residing at her parental house. 3. The police after completion of investigation filed charge-sheet against the applicants before J.M.F.C. Balaghat. The learned J.M.F.C. Balaghat took cognizance of the offences against all the applicants and registered criminal case No. 89/2013 against them. The said proceedings are going on, which have been challenged by the applicants on the ground that the applicants have never demanded dowry or harassed deceased Ruhina. The learned J.M.F.C. Balaghat took cognizance of the offences against all the applicants and registered criminal case No. 89/2013 against them. The said proceedings are going on, which have been challenged by the applicants on the ground that the applicants have never demanded dowry or harassed deceased Ruhina. The behavior of Ruhina Khan in the matrimonial house was very abnormal and disturbing. Therefore, she was divorced in accordance with the Muslim law on 5-10-2012. The Talaqnama is annexure P/8. Thereafter, as a counter blast against the applicant No. 1 husband and his other relatives a false report has been lodged with a view to take revenge while there is no specific allegation against all the applicants with regard to demand of dowry and harassment. Hence, prayer is made to quash the entire criminal proceedings. 4. Having perused the FIR and other material available with the charge-sheet, so far as applicant No. 1 is concerned, in the considered opinion of this Court there is specific allegation of demand of dowry, torture and harassment given by him to his wife deceased Ruhina Khan in connection with demand of dowry. But, so far as applicants No. 2 to 8 are concerned, there is no specific allegation of harassment and torture with regard to demand of dowry. Prima facie it appears that they have been implicated because they are close relatives of the applicant No. 1 with a view to take revenge on the basis of vague and omnibus statement. 5. Honble the Apex Court in Bhaskar Lal Sharma and another vs. Monica, (2009) 10 SCC 604 in which the Apex Court considering the judgment of the Apex Court in Sushil Kumar Sharma vs. Union of India, (2005) 6 SCC 281 held as under : 10. The object for which section 498-A, Indian Penal Code was introduced is amply reflected in the Statement of Objects and Reasons while enacting the Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act 46 of 1983. As clearly stated therein the increase in the number of dowry deaths is a matter of serious concern. The extent of the evil has been commented upon by the Joint Committee of the Houses to examine the work of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. As clearly stated therein the increase in the number of dowry deaths is a matter of serious concern. The extent of the evil has been commented upon by the Joint Committee of the Houses to examine the work of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. In some cases, cruelty of the husband and the relatives of the husband which culminate in suicide by or murder of the helpless woman concerned, constitute only a small fraction involving such cruelty. Therefore, it was proposed to amend Indian Penal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short CrPC) and the Evidence Act suitably to deal effectively not only with cases of dowry deaths but also cases of cruelty to married women by the husband, in-laws and relatives. The avowed object is to combat the menace of dowry death and cruelty. ............ ............ 19. The object of the provision is prevention of the dowry menace. But as has been rightly contended by the petitioner many instances have come to light where the complaints are not bona fide and have been filed with oblique motive. In such cases acquittal of the accused does not in all cases wipe out the ignominy suffered during and prior to trial. Sometimes adverse media coverage adds to the misery. The question, therefore, is what remedial measures can be taken to prevent abuse of the well-intentioned provision. Merely because the provision is constitutional and intra vires, does not give a licence to unscrupulous persons to wreak personal vendetta or unleash harassment. It may, therefore, become necessary for the legislature to find out ways how the makers of frivolous complaints or allegations can be appropriately dealt with. Till then the Courts have to take care of the situation within the existing framework. As noted above the object is to strike at the roots of dowry menace. But by misuse of the provision a new legal terrorism can be unleashed. The provision is intended to be used as a shield and not as an assassins weapon. If the cry of wolf is made too often as a prank, assistance and protection may not be available when the actual wolf appears. There is no question of the investigating agency and Courts casually dealing with the allegations. They cannot follow any straitjacket formula in the matters relating to dowry tortures, deaths and cruelty. If the cry of wolf is made too often as a prank, assistance and protection may not be available when the actual wolf appears. There is no question of the investigating agency and Courts casually dealing with the allegations. They cannot follow any straitjacket formula in the matters relating to dowry tortures, deaths and cruelty. It cannot be lost sight of that the ultimate objective of every legal system is to arrive at the truth, punish the guilty and protect the innocent. There is no scope for any preconceived notion or view. It is strenuously argued by the petitioner that the investigating agencies and the Courts start with the presumptions that the accused persons are guilty and that the complainant is speaking the truth. This is too wide and generalised a statement. Certain statutory presumptions are drawn which again are rebuttable. It is to be noted that the role of the investigating agencies and the Courts is that of a watchdog and not of a bloodhound. It should be their effort to see that an innocent person is not made to suffer on account of unfounded, baseless and malicious allegations. It is equally undisputable that in many cases no direct evidence is available and the Courts have to act on circumstantial evidence. While dealing with such cases, the law laid down relating to circumstantial evidence has to be kept in view. 6. Further the Apex Court in Preeti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 667 held that : 32. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under section 498-A, Indian Penal Code are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment is also a matter of serious concern. 7. Honble the Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra and another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2012)10 SCC 741 has held that : 20. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment is also a matter of serious concern. 7. Honble the Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra and another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2012)10 SCC 741 has held that : 20. Coming to the facts of this case, when the contents of the FIR are perused, it is apparent that there are no allegations against Kumari Geeta Mehrotra and Ramji Mehrotra except casual reference of their names which have been included in the FIR but mere casual reference of the names of the family members in a matrimonial dispute without allegation of active involvement in the matter would not justify taking cognizance against them overlooking the fact borne out of experience that there is a tendency to involve the entire family members of the household in the domestic quarrel taking place in a matrimonial dispute specially if it happens soon after the wedding. 8. Honble the Apex Court in the recent judgment, Rajesh Sharma and ors. vs. State of U.P. and anr., passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1265/2017 dated 27-7-2017 as observed in para 14, as under : 14. Section 498-A was inserted in the statute with the laudable object of punishing cruelty at the hands of husband or his relatives against a wife particularly when such cruelty had potential to result in suicide or murder of a woman as mentioned in the statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act 46 of 1983. The expression cruelty in section 498-A covers conduct which may drive the women to commit suicide or cause grave injury (mental or physical) or danger to life or harassment with a view to coerce her to meet unlawful demand. It is a matter of serious concern that large number of cases continue to be filed under already referred to some of the statistics from the Crime Records Bureau. This Court had earlier noticed the fact that most of such complaints are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues. Many of such complaints are not bona fide. At the time of filing of the complaint, implications and consequences are not visualized. At times such complaints lead to uncalled for harassment not only to the accused but also to the complainant. Uncalled for arrest may ruin the chances of settlement. 9. Many of such complaints are not bona fide. At the time of filing of the complaint, implications and consequences are not visualized. At times such complaints lead to uncalled for harassment not only to the accused but also to the complainant. Uncalled for arrest may ruin the chances of settlement. 9. Considering the aforesaid enunciation of law and the facts of the case, in view of this Court, so far as proceedings against applicants No. 2 to 9 are concerned, the same deserves to be quashed. So far as applicant No. 1 is concerned, prima facie case for the alleged offence is made out against him. Hence, invoking powers under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code with a view to secure the ends of justice and to prevent misuse of the process of the Court this petition is partly allowed and the proceedings against applicants No. 2 to 9 for the offences punishable under sections 498-A/34, Indian Penal Code read with section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in Criminal Case No. No. 89/2013 pending before J.M.F.C. Balaghat, is hereby quashed and they are discharge from the aforesaid charges. However, the proceedings in No. 89/2013 pending before J.M.F.C. Balaghat, against applicant No. 1 shall go on. 10. A copy of this order be sent to the concerning Court for information and compliance.