JUDGMENT 1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners seeking quashment of the FIR in Crime No. 35/18 registered at Mahila Thana, District Sagar for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 506/34 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. They also pray for quashing of the consequential proceeding bearing RCT No. 8/2019 pending before JMFC, Sagar. 2. According to the case, on the basis of a complaint made by complainant/respondent No. 2, the police has registered a case under the aforesaid offences against the petitioners and one Rajesh Balmiki, husband of respondent No. 2. It is mentioned in the FIR that the marriage of respondent No. 2 was solemnized with Rajesh Balmiki on 15.05.2017. The family members of the respondent have given sufficient articles at the time of marriage. The respondent was living with the petitioners in joint family. She further mentioned that after the ceremony of first Bidai , the petitioner No. 1 (mother in law) started taunting her on account of non-fulfillment of dowry. She further alleged that the petitioner No. 1 abused her and used to starve her. Further, when she made a complaint of petitioner No. 1 to her father-in-law i.e. petitioner No. 2, they along with husband Rajesh scuffled with her. Thereafter her sister in law and brother in law (Jeth- Jethani) i.e. petitioner No. 3 & 4 came there and told her to bring rupees 10 lakh. She alleged that all the petitioners committed marpeet with her. She also alleged against her husband for demand of dowry and torture. She stated that on 07.07.2018, the petitioners made a conspiracy with her husband to kill her. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent persons and have been falsely implicated in the case. He submits that they never demanded any dowry from the respondent No. 2 and her family members. He further submits that according to respondent No. 2, last incident was occurred on 07.07.2018 but the complaint was lodged on 04.12.2018, after the period of five months. The respondent No. 2 has not given any satisfactory explanation in this regard. Hence, the allegations made in the FIR, are afterthoughts and concocted. He further submits that according to respondent No. 2, last incident was occurred on 07.07.2018 but the complaint was lodged on 04.12.2018, after the period of five months. The respondent No. 2 has not given any satisfactory explanation in this regard. Hence, the allegations made in the FIR, are afterthoughts and concocted. He further argued that the respondent No. 2 herself stated that soon after the marriage, the petitioners started torturing her but she never lodged any FIR or complaint prior to the FIR in question. He stated that respondent No. 2 is a rude woman and she was making pressure on the petitioners to send her husband at her parental house to live separately. Her husband was not ready so she implicated all the family members in this false case. There is also contradiction in the police statements of the witnesses. He further submits that petitioners No. 3 and 4 reside separately from the other accused and respondent No. 2, even then they have been implicated in the case. The petitioners No. 1 and 2 are old age persons, moreover, petitioner No. 1 is a Government servant, hence, just to create pressure on account of her revenge, the respondent No. 2 made them as accused. The petitioner No. 1 and 2 are also living separately and same is indicated from their complaint dated 25.07.2018 filed before the SP Sagar. Further, there is no independent witness in the case. With the aforesaid submission, he prays for allowing this petition. In support of his contention, he relied on the some judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court. 4. On the other hand, learned panel lawyer for respondent No. 1/State as well and counsel for respondent No. 2 oppose the petition submitting that there is sufficient material available in the case to prosecute the petitioners. The complainant has specifically alleged against all the petitioners for the aforesaid offences, hence, FIR may not be quashed at this stage. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 further submits that the offences are related to matrimonial cases and are continuing offences, hence, no question of delay in lodging the FIR, specially when the complainant stated that she was trying to save her relation. He further submits that all the petitioners have demanded dowry and for the same reason, they tortured her mentally and physically. He further submits that all the petitioners have demanded dowry and for the same reason, they tortured her mentally and physically. He submits that at this initial stage of trial, the Court may not go into the question of truthfulness or veracity of complaint made by the respondent No. 2, it is for the trial Court to decide the same in trial. On perusal of FIR, there is sufficient prima facie material to prosecute them further, hence, this petition deserves to be dismissed. In support of his contention, he relied on the order passed by the High Court of Gauhati in the case of Rajiv Deori @ Rajiv Kumar Deori and others Vs. Riju Bharali and another passed in Criminal Petition No. 270/2015 dated 22.01.2016 . 5. Heard and perused the case diary. 6. On perusal of case diary, it appears that the allegations made against the petitioners are that they have tortured the respondent No. 2 on account of non fulfilment of dowry for which the respondent No. 2 has registered the FIR in aforesaid crime number. Since, the learned counsel for the petitioners raised the ground of delay in lodging the FIR, therefore, it would be appropriate to decide the said issue first. 7. At this juncture, I would like to quote the following portion from the case of State of Himachal Pradesh v. Gian Chand, (2001) 6 SCC 71 , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under :- " 12. Delay in lodging the FIR cannot be used as a ritualistic formula for doubting the prosecution case and discarding the same solely on the ground of delay in lodging the first information report. Delay has the effect of putting the court on its guard to search if any explanation has been offered for the delay, and if offered, whether it is satisfactory or not. If the prosecution fails to satisfactorily explain the delay and there is a possibility of embellishment in the prosecution version on account of such delay, the delay would be fatal to the prosecution. However, if the delay is explained to the satisfaction of the court, the delay cannot by itself be a ground for disbelieving and discarding the entire prosecution case.." 8. Further, in the case of P. Rajagopal v. State of T.N., (2019) 5 SCC 403 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under :- 12. However, if the delay is explained to the satisfaction of the court, the delay cannot by itself be a ground for disbelieving and discarding the entire prosecution case.." 8. Further, in the case of P. Rajagopal v. State of T.N., (2019) 5 SCC 403 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under :- 12. Normally, the Court may reject the case of the prosecution in case of inordinate delay in lodging the first information report because of the possibility of concoction of evidence by the prosecution. However, if the delay is satisfactorily explained, the Court will decide the matter on merits without giving much importance to such delay. The Court is duty-bound to determine whether the explanation afforded is plausible enough given the facts and circumstances of the case. The delay may be condoned if the complainant appears to be reliable and without any motive for implicating the accused falsely. [See Apren Josephv.State of Kerala[Apren Josephv.State of Kerala, (1973) 3 SCC 114 9. On careful reading of the above referred citations, it is revealed that the prosecution case cannot be discarded solely on the ground of delay in lodging the first information report if the prosecution has satisfactorily explained the delay. The delay may be condoned if the complainant appears to be reliable and without any motive for implicating the accused falsely. 10. In the present case, the case diary shows that on the basis of written complaint dated 04.12.2018, filed by respondent No. 2, the FIR has been registered by the police on 09.12.2018. The incident period which is mentioned in the FIR is from 16.05.2017 to 25.07.2018. On perusal of FIR, the last incident of conspiracy to kill her by her in-laws is alleged to be occurred on 07.07.2018 i.e. about five months before the registration of the FIR. In the application submitted to SP Sagar, the complainant stated that after the incident of 07.07.2018 when she came to her parental home, her parents were trying to convince her but in the meanwhile the petitioners have filed the complaint to SP Sagar against her. 11. In my opinion the matrimonial offences are somehow different as that of other offences and due to social slander and bounding, there is always a possibility of delay in availing the legal remedy by the bride or her family members, perhaps to save their relationship. 11. In my opinion the matrimonial offences are somehow different as that of other offences and due to social slander and bounding, there is always a possibility of delay in availing the legal remedy by the bride or her family members, perhaps to save their relationship. Moreover, in any eventuality whether there is any inordinate delay in lodging the FIR or not, same would be tested at trial. At this stage, in the facts of the present case, it cannot be a ground for discharge. 12. Now, I proceed to examine the merits of the case to find out whether any case is made out against the petitioners or not ? In this context, first I would like to refer to the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court for quashing the FIR. In the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] , the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the power under section 482 Cr.P.C should be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] , the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the power under section 482 Cr.P.C should be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The court issued seven guidelines to exercise the power under section 482 Cr.P.C. Same are quoted herein under : ' '(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 F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except 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; (4) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a noncognizable 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 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 the code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party; (7) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly 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." 13. This is a case of matrimonial dispute, therefore, it has to be seen as how to deal with a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings. 14. The Apex Court in the case of Rakhi Mishra Vs. State of Bihar and others reported in AIR 2017 S.C. 4019 has held as under:- 'This Court in Sonu Gupta Vs. Deepak Gupak Gupta and ors. (2015) 3 SCC 424 , 426: (AIR 2015 SC (Supp) 684) held as follows: 'At the stage of cognizance and summoning the Magistrate is required to apply his judicial mind only with a view to take cognizance of the offence to find out whether a prima facie case is made out for summoning the accused persons. At this stage, the Magistrate is not required to consider the defence version or materials or arguments nor he is required to evaluate the merits of the materials or evidence of the complainant, because the Magistrate must not undertake the exercise to find out at this stage whether the materials would lead to conviction or not." 15. Further, in the case of Preeti Gupta & anothers Vs. State of Jharkhand & another reported in AIR 2010 SC 3363 , the Apex Court expressed its anxiety in increasing the number of matrimonial cases and roping the close relative of husband in the case. The Court has held as under :- '28. It is a matter of common knowledge that unfortunately matrimonial litigation is rapidly increasing in our country. All the courts in our country including this court are flooded with matrimonial cases. This clearly demonstrates discontent and unrest in the family life of a large number of people of the society. 29. The courts are receiving a large number of cases emanating from Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code which reads as under:- " 498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty .--Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.-- For the purposes of this section,`cruelty' means:- (a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand." 30. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under Section 498-A IPC 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 are also a matter of serious concern. 16. The Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2014(8) SCC 273 has held as under :- '4. There is phenomenal increase in matrimonial disputes in recent years. The institution of marriage is greatly revered in this country. Section 498-A of the IPC was introduced with avowed object to combat the menace of harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband and his relatives. The fact that Section 498-A IPC is a cognizable and non-bailable offence has lent it a dubious place of pride amongst the provisions that are used as weapons rather than shield by disgruntled wives. The simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his relatives arrested under this provision. In a quite number of cases, bed-ridden grand-fathers and grand-mothers of the husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested. 'Crime in India 2012 Statistics' published by National Crime Records Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs shows arrest of 1,97,762 persons all over India during the year 2012 for offence under Section 498-A of the IPC, 9.4% more than the year 2011. Nearly a quarter of those arrested under this provision in 2012 were women i.e. 47,951 which depicts that mothers and sisters of the husbands were liberally included in their arrest net. Nearly a quarter of those arrested under this provision in 2012 were women i.e. 47,951 which depicts that mothers and sisters of the husbands were liberally included in their arrest net. Its share is 6% out of the total persons arrested under the crimes committed under Indian Penal Code. It accounts for 4.5% of total crimes committed under different sections of penal code, more than any other crimes excepting theft and hurt. The rate of charge-sheeting in cases under Section 498-A, IPC is as high as 93.6%, while the conviction rate is only 15%, which is lowest across all heads. As many as 3,72,706 cases are pending trial of which on current estimate, nearly 3,17,000 are likely to result in acquittal. 5. Arrest brings humiliation, curtails freedom and cast scars forever. Law makers know it so also the police. There is a battle between the lawmakers and the police and it seems that police has not learnt its lesson; the lesson implicit and embodied in the Cr.P.C. It has not come out of its colonial image despite six decades of independence, it is largely considered as a tool of harassment, oppression and surely not considered a friend of public. The need for caution in exercising the drastic power of arrest has been emphasized time and again by Courts but has not yielded desired result. Power to arrest greatly contributes to its arrogance so also the failure of the Magistracy to check it. Not only this, the power of arrest is one of the lucrative sources of police corruption. The attitude to arrest first and then proceed with the rest is despicable. It has become a handy tool to the police officers who lack sensitivity or act with oblique motive." 17 . Likewise, in the case of Geeta Mehrotra and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another reported in (2012) 10 SCC 741 , the Honble Apex Court has noted that in the matrimonial dispute, there is tendency to involve the entire family members of the husband. The Court has held as under: '20. Likewise, in the case of Geeta Mehrotra and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another reported in (2012) 10 SCC 741 , the Honble Apex Court has noted that in the matrimonial dispute, there is tendency to involve the entire family members of the husband. The Court has held as under: '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. 21. It would be relevant at this stage to take note of an apt observation of this Court recorded G.V. Rao vs. L.H.V. Prasad (2000) 3 SCC 693 wherein also in a matrimonial dispute, this Court had held that the High Court should have quashed the complaint arising out of a matrimonial dispute wherein all family members had been roped into the matrimonial litigation which was quashed and set aside. Their Lordships observed therein with which we entirely agree that: '12.There has been an outburst of matrimonial dispute in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their 'young' days in chasing their cases in different courts. The view taken by the judges in that matter was that the Courts would not encourage such dispute." 18. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the marriage of respondent No. 2 was solemnized with accused Rajesh Balmiki on 15.05.2017 and the petitioners are her matrimonial family members. Petitioners No. 1 and 2 are mother in law and father in law of respondent No. 2 whereas petitioners No. 3 and 4 are her brother in law and sister in law, respectively. It is found that respondent No. 2 alleged that petitioner No. 1 & 2 have abused her and her family members. Petitioner No. 1 has also taunted her for bringing less dowry. So far as petitioner No. 3 and 4 are concerned, they are brother in law and sister in law of respondent No. 2 and allegation against them is that when the husband of complainant was beating her, they came there and told her to bring ten lakh rupees from her parents. Subsequently, respondent No. 2 alleged that all the petitioners and her husband beaten her. For the incident of 07.07.2018, the respondent No. 2 specifically alleged against her husband that he beaten and tried to hang her. 19. On perusal of case diary, it is found that the petitioner No. 1 and 2 have also filed an application before SP Sagar on 09.07.2018 alleging against the respondent No. 2 and her husband and mentioned that they told respondent No. 2 and her husband to live apart from them thereafter they started living separately but on perusal of application dated 25.07.2018 filed by the husband of respondent No. 2 before Mahila Police Thana Sagar, it appears that it is not mentioned by the husband of respondent No. 2 that they were living apart from petitioner No. 1 and 2. 20. So far as petitioners No. 3 and 4 are concerned they are brother in law and sister in law of respondent No. 2 and were living separately. In this regard, they have file a document of Samagra Portal. On perusal of statement of respondent No. 2 and witnesses namely Savitri and Rahul, the allegation lavelled against the petitioner No. 3 and 4 are found general in nature. In this regard, they have file a document of Samagra Portal. On perusal of statement of respondent No. 2 and witnesses namely Savitri and Rahul, the allegation lavelled against the petitioner No. 3 and 4 are found general in nature. Considering the case at hand in the light of the aforesaid pronouncements and after minute perusal of the case diary, it is found that the main grievance of respondent no. 2 is against her husband/accused Rajesh Balmiki and petitioner No. 1 and 2 who were allegedly living together and had beaten and tortured her, but the petitioner No. 3 and 4 have also been roped in the case merely because of their relation with him. Petitioners no. 1 & 2 are father and mohter-in-law of respondent No. 2 and looking to the specific allegation against them, they are not entitled to get any relief by this Court. So far as petitioner No. 3 and 4 are concerned, prima facie they are living separately and for want of any specific allegation or disclosure of precise incident against them, it would amount to abuse of the process of law to allow their prosecution for alleged offences. The allegation made against them are found vague and general in nature. 21. Therefore, this petition is partly allowed . Consequently, the FIR in crime No. 35/18 registered at Mahila Thana, District Sagar for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 506/34 of IPC and Section of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and its consequential proceeding bearing RCT No. 8/2019 pending before JMFC, Sagar are hereby quashed against the petitioners No. 3 and 4 only. The trial shall be continued in relation to petitioners No. 1 and 2 and this petition is dismissed in their context. It is also made clear that any findings of this order shall not affect the discretion of learned trial Court.