JUDGMENT Rajendra Kumar Srivastava, J. - Accused/Petitioners have filed the instant petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (in short "the Code") to quash the FIR No.0269/2018 registered at Police Station Waraseoni, District Balaghat (MP), of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC for short) for offence under Sections 498-A, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and discharge the petitioners for the aforesaid offences. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case, before the trial Court, are that the complainant/respondent No.2 lodged First Information Report before Police Station Waraseoni, District Balaghat, on 14.6.2018. It is alleged in that report that the marriage of complainant/respondent No.2 was solemnized with accused/petitioner No.1 on 24.6.2012. At the time of marriage, complainant/respondent No.2 was posted as Constable at Police Station Gondiya. Accused/petitioner No.2 is mother-in-law, accused/petitioner No.3 is son of elder sister-in-law of complainant/respondent No.2. Her elder sister-in-law died, so accused/petitioner No.3 is residing in the matrimonial home of complainant/ respondent No.2. Accused/petitioners No. 4 & 5 are also sisters-in-law of complainant/respondent No.2 and they are already married. After marriage, complainant/respondent No.2 lived at matrimonial home with accused/petitioners No. 1, 2 & 3. After her marriage, the family members were treating her properly. Soon after two months of her marriage, accused/petitioners started humiliation. They prevented her to go out of matrimonial home, started beating her and tortured her mentally. They pressurized her to leave her job. Due to her job, accused/petitioners humiliated and tortured her. Complainant/respondent No.2 tried to solve that problem, but she was unable to do so. In the month of June 2015, accused/petitioners abused, beat her and pressurised her to leave her matrimonial home otherwise she would have to leave her job. She informed this fact to her parents. Thereafter, her parents reached her matrimonial home. They tried to solve the problem, but accused/petitioners also humiliated them. Due to this complainant/respondent No.2 left her job to save her marital life in November 2015. Thereafter, accused/petitioners demanded a four wheeler from her or to give amount. Complainant/respondent No.2 refused to accept this proposal, then accused/petitioners tortured and humiliated her. Thereafter, she was blessed with a second daughter in the year 2016. She was already having a daughter. Accused/petitioners expected a boy from complainant/respondent No.2. Due to second daughter, they tortured and humiliated her. Accused/petitioner No.1 is heavy drinker. He tortured and humiliated complainant/ respondent No.2 due to non-fulfillment of dowry. Thereafter, she was blessed with a second daughter in the year 2016. She was already having a daughter. Accused/petitioners expected a boy from complainant/respondent No.2. Due to second daughter, they tortured and humiliated her. Accused/petitioner No.1 is heavy drinker. He tortured and humiliated complainant/ respondent No.2 due to non-fulfillment of dowry. Other accused/petitioners instigated to demand dowry and committed cruelty with her. Accused/petitioner No.3 himself also told her that complainant/respondent No.2 have only daughters, so he will mutate all the properties. He also abused filthily. On 2.3.2018, accused/petitioners No. 4 & 5 advised accused/petitioner No.1 for second marriage. On 5-6.3.2018 and 7.5.2018, accused/petitioner No.1 beat her. Other accused/petitioners co-operated accused/petitioner No.1, then she informed all the incident to her brother, her brother reached her matrimonial home on 8.3.2018, she left her matrimonial home. Accused/petitioners threatened her and they mentally tortured and humiliated her, therefore, criminal proceeding is initiated against the accused/petitioners. 3. Learned counsel for the accused/petitioners submits that complainant/respondent No.2 was short tampered and her behaviour was characterized by her tendency to pick up fights and she used to enter into heated arguments with accused/petitioner No.1 on trivial issues. She has no interest in leading a married life with accused/petitioner No.1. Accused/petitioner No.1 is physically disabled and for this reason, complainant/respondent No.2 did not want to lead her marital life with him. Complainant/respondent No.2 left her matrimonial home without any reasonable cause, so accused/petitioner No.1 filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Complainant/respondent No.2 was informed to appear in the petition. Thereafter, as a counter blast and an after though, complainant/ respondent No.2 lodged FIR against accused/petitioners. Accused/petitioners No. 3 to 5 are residing separately from the complainant/respondent No.2 ever since the date of marriage of accused/petitioner No.1. Accused/petitioner No.4, is sister-in-law of complainant/respondent No.2, she is married and residing with her husband at Katangi since 1999. Accused/petitioner No.5 also married sister-in-law of complainant/respondent No.2 and she is residing at different places since 2004, which includes Jammu & Kashmir, Hyderabad, Hongkong and other places. So, it appears that these accused/petitioners with malafide intention have been implicated in this case being sisters of accused/petitioner No.1. Accused/petitioner No.3 is also residing at Nagpur. He is also involved in this case on the ground that he is the son of sister-in-law of accused/ petitioner No.1. So, it appears that these accused/petitioners with malafide intention have been implicated in this case being sisters of accused/petitioner No.1. Accused/petitioner No.3 is also residing at Nagpur. He is also involved in this case on the ground that he is the son of sister-in-law of accused/ petitioner No.1. So, these facts make it amply clear that these accused/petitioners have been roped in for oblique motive in this case. Accused/petitioner No.2 is mother-inlaw of complainant/respondent No.2. There is general allegation about demand of dowry and cruelty against her. It is a global tendency to falsely implicate nearer and dearer of husband in such type of cases to pressurise him. There is no material in this case on the basis of which it can be said that accused/petitioners demanded dowry from the complainant/respondent No.2 and committed cruelty with her. Complainant/respondent No.2 also filed a case under Domestic Violence Act without any basis. So, this is a proper case in which inherent jurisdiction can be invoked. Learned counsel for accused/petitioners prays to quash the FIR registered against them. Learned counsel for the accused/petitioners relied upon the decisions in the cases of Swapnil and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2014) 13 SCC 567 , Varala Bharath Kumar and another Vs. State of Telangana and another, (2017) 9 SCC 413 , Geeta Mehrotra and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2012) 10 SCC 741 , Preeti Gupta and another Vs. State of Jharkhand and another, (2010) 7 SCC 667 , Sunder Babu and others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2009) 14 SCC 244 , Bhushan Kumar Meen Vs. State of Punjab and others, (2011) 8 SCC 438 , Sandeep Singh Bais @ Anshu & ors Vs. State of M.P. and another (M.Cr.C.No.3658 of 2016, decided on 9.3.2017). 4. Learned counsel for the complainant/respondent No.2 submits that there is prima-facie material which is available on record, on the basis of which it can be said that all the accused/petitioners demanded dowry and committed cruelty with complainant/respondent No.2. Accused/ petitioner No.2 is running 5 nursing colleges for girls situated at Hudkitola, Balaghat, Seoni, Mandla and Waraseoni as well as he is having his own school-Nursery Gokul English. Accused/petitioner No.1 used to develop illicit relations with girls of Nursery College taking benefit of their poverty. He is habitual in consuming liquor. He enjoyed his life in the company of other ladies. Accused/petitioner No.1 used to develop illicit relations with girls of Nursery College taking benefit of their poverty. He is habitual in consuming liquor. He enjoyed his life in the company of other ladies. When complainant/respondent No.2 informed these facts to accused/petitioners No. 4 & 5, then they used to see that consuming liquor and having illicit relations with other girls is a common and routine for accused/petitioner No.1. Accused/petitioner No.3 used to check mobile phone of complainant/respondent No.2, in order to see as to whom she had talked during the day. He also used filthy language with complainant/respondent No.2. When the complainant/respondent No.2 became pregnant, at that time family members of accused/petitioners had informed that she should deliver a son, otherwise she will not be allowed to live peacefully in the matrimonial home. When complainant/respondent No.2 delivered a female child (daughter), then accused/petitioners got very angry against complainant/respondent No.2, they had increased ill-treatment with complainant/respondent No.2 and were not taking any care. Accused/petitioners expected a son, but again in the year 2016, complainant/respondent No.2 delivered another daughter, hence they had increased mental and physical cruelty to her. Accused/petitioners were not allowing the complainant/respondent No.2 to go out of the house. They were not allowing her to attend her duties as Police Constable. Accused/petitioners used to say that Police Constable is degrading their family status, so there is prima facie case against all the accused/petitioners. Therefore, this is not a proper case in which inherent jurisdiction can be invoked and the petition is liable to be dismissed. In support of the aforesaid contention, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 relied upon the decision of the Apex Court as well as High Court in the cases of Rashmi Chopra V. State of U.P.,2019 SCCOnLineSC 620 . 5. Heard both the parties and perused the record. 6. This is a case of matrimonial dispute, therefore, it has to be seen as to how to deal with a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings. 7. It has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Harshendra Kumar D. Vs. Rehatilata Koley, (2011) AIR SC 1090 that controverted documents or material of unimpeachable or sterling character may be considered while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. It is also clear that this is a case of matrimonial dispute. 8. 7. It has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Harshendra Kumar D. Vs. Rehatilata Koley, (2011) AIR SC 1090 that controverted documents or material of unimpeachable or sterling character may be considered while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. It is also clear that this is a case of matrimonial dispute. 8. The Apex Court in the case of Rakhi Mishra Vs. State of Bihar and others, (2017) AIR SC 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." 9. The Apex Court in the case of Kans Raj Vs. State of Punjab and others, (2000) 5 SCC 207 has held as under:- "In the light of the evidence in the case we find substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the defence that respondents 3 to 5 were roped in the case only on the ground of being close relations of respondent No.2, the husband of the deceased. For the fault of the husband, the in-laws or the other relations cannot, in all cases, be held to be involved in the demand of dowry. In cases where such accusations are made, the overt acts attributed to persons other than husband are required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. By mere conjectures and implicationssuch relations cannot be held guilty for the offence relating to dowry deaths. A tendency has, however, developed for roping in all relations of the in-laws of the deceased wives in the matters of dowry deaths which, if not discouraged, is likely to affect the case of the prosecution even against the real culprits. By mere conjectures and implicationssuch relations cannot be held guilty for the offence relating to dowry deaths. A tendency has, however, developed for roping in all relations of the in-laws of the deceased wives in the matters of dowry deaths which, if not discouraged, is likely to affect the case of the prosecution even against the real culprits. In their over enthusiasm and anxiety to seek conviction for maximum people, the parents of the deceased have been found to be making efforts for involving other relations which ultimately weaken the case of the prosecution even against the real accused as appears to have happened in the instant case." 10. The Apex Court in the case of Preeti Gupta & anothers Vs. State of Jharkhand & another, (2010) AIR SC 3363 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. 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. 11. The Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, (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 grandmothers 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. 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. 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." 12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2012) 10 SCC 741 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 this matter was that the Courts would not encourage such disputes." 13. The Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajan Lal and others, (1992) Supp1 SCC 335 as held as under:- "102. The Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajan Lal and others, (1992) Supp1 SCC 335 as held as under:- "102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reporduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though 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 of 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 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 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 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 mala fide 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. In the light of aforesaid legal position, I would proceed to decide this petition. 15. It is evident from the record that after the registration of FIR Investigating Officer recorded the police statement of complainant/respondent No.2, her father and mother. It is admitted fact that accused/petitioner No.4 Smt. Rihali Sahare and accused/petitioner No.5 Smt. Vallavi Pardhi are married sisters-in-law of complainant/ respondent No.2. In arrest memo of accused/petitioner No.4 Smt. Rihali Sahare, it is mentioned that she is residing at Navegaon, Post Chhota Tumsar, Police Station Katangi. In arrest memo of accused/petitioner No.5, it is mentioned that she is residing in Ward No.5 Lalbarra Road, Waraseoni. Apart from this, accused/petitioner No.5 also having a passport, so it is evident that accused/petitioners No. 4 & 5 are residing with their family at their matrimonial home, so they are residing separately from accused/ petitioner No.1 and his wife complainant/ respondent No.2. Although, it is alleged against these accused/petitioners that they cooperated in the act of accused/petitioner No.1 and also instigated personally and told to kill her to commit cruelty with complainant/respondent No.2, but all these facts are general in nature against accused/petitioners No. 4 & 5 with regard to demand of dowry and cruelty. Since these accused/petitioners are married, living separately, so there is no opportunity for them to make any demand of dowry from complainant/respondent No.2 and mother and father of complainant/respondent No.2 also did not allege any specific act of demand of dowry and cruelty in regard to these accused/petitioners. So, it appears that accused/ petitioners No. 4 & 5 have been roped in this case only on the ground that they are sisters of accused/petitioner No.1. It came in experience that there is tendency to involve the entire family members of husband in such type of cases. So, it appears that accused/ petitioners No. 4 & 5 have been roped in this case only on the ground that they are sisters of accused/petitioner No.1. It came in experience that there is tendency to involve the entire family members of husband in such type of cases. So, in these circumstances, it is evident that accused/ petitioners No. 4 & 5 have been involved in this case with malafide intention on the ground that they are sisters of accused/petitioner No.1. Therefore, it is a proper case in which inherent jurisdiction can be invoked and to quash the FIR, with regard to accused/petitioners No. 4 & 5. 16. It is evident from the record that accused/petitioners No. 1, 2 & 3 are residing altogether. After marriage, complainant/respondent No.2 lived with these accused/ petitioners at her matrimonial home. It is alleged by her that at the time of her marriage, she was employed as Police Constable at Maharashtra Police and was posted at Gondiya. After the marriage, these accused/petitioners pressurised her to leave the job. She tried to sort out the dispute, but she was unable to do so. Due to this, accused/petitioners tortured and humiliated her, then she left her job in the year 2015. Apart from this, there is allegation of demand of dowry, torture and humiliation. Although, accused/petitioner No.1 submits that complainan/respondent No.2 is short-tampered and she used to fight on trivial matters. She did not marital life due to disability of accused/petitioner No.1 and before her marriage, it is told by him that complainant/ respondent No.2 will leave her job and reside with accused/ petitioner No.1 at her matrimonial home, so there is no question to pressurise her to leave the job, but all these facts will be investigated during the trial. Complainant/ respondent No.2 lived with accused/petitioners No. 1, 2 and 3 at matrimonial house. Complainant/respondent No.2 alleged demand of dowry and cruelty against these accused/ petitioners, so all these facts will be investigated during the trial. So this is not a proper case in which inherent jurisdiction can be invoked with regard to these accused/ petitioners and to quash the FIR and subsequent proceedings against them. 17. Accordingly, the M.Cr.C. stands partly allowed in so far as it relates to accused/petitioners No. 4 & 5. It stands dismissed in so far as relates to accused/petitioners No. 1 to 3. 17. Accordingly, the M.Cr.C. stands partly allowed in so far as it relates to accused/petitioners No. 4 & 5. It stands dismissed in so far as relates to accused/petitioners No. 1 to 3. FIR No.0269/2018, registered at Police Station Waraseoni, District Balaghat (MP), for offence under Sections 498-A, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC as against accused/petitioners No.4 & 5, stands quashed and to discharge them from the aforesaid offence.