ORDER : The instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the accused-petitioners for assailing the order dated 05.12.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge, Women Atrocities & Dowry Cases, Sri Ganganagar in Criminal Revision Petition No.35/2019 whereby, the revision petition preferred by the petitioners was rejected and the order dated 02.02.2019 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar in Criminal Regular Case No.214/2018 (State Vs. Arun Kumar & Ors.) directing the framing of charges against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 498A and 406 of the IPC was upheld. In nutshell, facts relevant and essential for disposal of the Misc. Petition are noted hereinbelow:- The respondent No.2 complainant Smt. Pratibha Dhingra filed a complaint against the petitioners and one Lakshit Kumar at the Police Station Mahila Thana, Sri Ganganagar on 21.12.2017 alleging inter alia that her marriage was solemnized with the petitioner No.1 Arun Kumar at the Classic Castle Resort, Firozpur (Punjab) on 17.02.2014 as per the Hindu rites and rituals. Wholesome dowry was given at the time of her marriage. All her dowry articles were taken into possession by the petitioners on reaching the matrimonial home. The complainant settled with the petitioner No.1 Arun Kumar at Firozpur, Punjab and on the very next day of the marriage, insinuations were made by her matrimonial relatives that the dowry articles given by her parents were not sufficient. She was insulted saying that only an I-20 Car had been given, whereas they were expecting a Fortuner car in dowry. The mother-in-law slapped the complainant when she spoke in defence of her parents. She was humiliated and harassed incessantly. A few days after the marriage, the complainant realized that her husband Arun Kumar was a drug addict. She got pregnant and the accused continued to harass her even during the period of her pregnancy. She gave birth to a baby girl on 01.07.2015 on which, her mother-in-law treated her with gross cruelty. In December 2016, the father-in-law outraged the modesty of the complainant and she was turned out of the matrimonial home. She came to know in the month of July 2017 that her husband was admitted at DMC Hospital, Ludhiana, on which, she went there to meet him, but she was disallowed by her mother-in-law to met the doctors, which made her suspicous. She came to know in the month of July 2017 that her husband was admitted at DMC Hospital, Ludhiana, on which, she went there to meet him, but she was disallowed by her mother-in-law to met the doctors, which made her suspicous. However, on 14.09.2017, the complainant could somehow gain access to the Doctor and came to know that her husband was suffering from Epileptic fits, which were caused by his drug addiction. The complainant’s father convened a community Panchayat meeting on 01.10.2017 and requested the petitioners to return her dowry articles, but they refused to do so. On the basis of this complaint, an FIR No.196/2017 came to be registered against the petitioners and one Lakshit Kumar at the Police Station Mahila Thana, District Sri Ganganagar and investigation was commenced. The Investigating Officer did not find the allegation for the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC substantiated and a chargesheet was filed against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 498A and 406 IPC. The trial court framed charges against the petitioners for these very offences by the order dated 02.02.2019, which was unsuccessfully challenged by filing a revision, which was dismissed vide order dated 05.12.2019. Both these orders are challenged in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel Shri Himmat Jagga and Ms. Aruna Negi representing the petitioners vehemently and fervently urged that the entire prosecution case is false and fabricated. The complainant deserted the petitioner No.1 Arun Kumar, who filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act in the Court of District Judge, Firozpur in the year 2017 and immediately on receiving the notices of that petition, the FIR came to be lodged. Attention of this Court was also drawn to the applications filed by Shri Pratesh Dhingra, brother of the complainant to the SHO, Women Police Station, District Firozpur on 30.11.2017, wherein pertinent allegations are made only against petitioner No.1 Arun Kumar. Learned counsel Shri Himmat Jagga thus urged that exfacie, the involvement of the petitioners Nos.2 and 3, namely Pradeep Kumar and Smt. Usha Rani, in this case is totally unjust and unwarranted. They have been roped into the case for oblique motives. Even in the application filed by the complainant under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, primary allegations of harassment and humiliation allegedly meted out to the complainant are made against the petitioner No.1 Arun Kumar only. They have been roped into the case for oblique motives. Even in the application filed by the complainant under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, primary allegations of harassment and humiliation allegedly meted out to the complainant are made against the petitioner No.1 Arun Kumar only. He urges that on the one hand, the complainant has alleged in the FIR that the petitioner No.1 Arun Kumar was a drug addict and did not do any work and on the other hand, she has claimed monthly maintenance from him by filing the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act claiming that he has significant income from various sources and should be ordered to pay monthly maintenance to the tune of Rs.1 Lac. It was further contended that marriage of the parties took place at Firozpur in Punjab and no part of cause of action ever took place in Rajasthan so as to justify continuance of proceedings at Sri Ganganagar, as the court at Sri Gangangar has no jurisdiction to try the case. In support of his contentions, Mr. Jagga placed reliance on the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the matter of Rajesh Sharma Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. [ AIR 2017 SC 3869 ]. Learned counsel for the petitioners thus urged that the impugned orders and all the proceedings sought to be taken thereunder, deserve to be quashed and set aside qua the petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 namely Pradeep Kumar and Smt. Usha Rani. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel Mr. Dron Kaushik, representing the complainant, vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioner’s counsel and urged that the complainant has levelled clear allegations of harassment and humiliation and misappropriation of her dowry articles in the FIR as well as in the statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC and as such, this court should refrain from interfering in the matter while exercising its inherent powers. They, thus, sought dismissal of the miscellaneous petition. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the material available on record. Suffice it to say that the fact regarding the marriage of the petitioner No.1 and the complainant having taken place at Firozpur is not disputed. However, keeping in view the law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Rupali Devi Vs. Suffice it to say that the fact regarding the marriage of the petitioner No.1 and the complainant having taken place at Firozpur is not disputed. However, keeping in view the law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Rupali Devi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. [ AIR 2019 SC 1790 ] and as the respondent complainant has alleged that after being maltreated and having been turned out of the matrimonial home, she is compelled to live at her father’s house at Sri Ganganagar, the FIR can be lodged and the proceedings of the case can definitely be continued in a competent Court at Sri Ganagnagar. Thus, the objection of jurisdiction raised by Mr. Jagga does not sustain in light of the above Supreme Court judgment. In the complaint, which was lodged in December 2017, in addition to the above allegations, the complainant also alleged that the father-in-law tried to outrage her modesty in December 2016. However, this allegation was not found substantiated by the investigating agency. It is also apparent that the husband Arun Kumar filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act and after receiving notices thereof, the FIR came to be registered. In this background, the factual aspects of the case have to be appreciated with extra care and caution. If the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 161 CrPC is carefully perused, it becomes clear that there is no specific allegation whatsoever regarding entrustment of her dowry articles to the petitioner No.2 Pradeep Kumar and the petitioner No.3 Smt. Usha Rani. In her statement, the complainant levelled omnibus allegations that after the marriage, her mother-in-law, father-inlaw and brother-in-law started taunting her that with their status, they expected a Fortuner car in dowry, whereas her father had given only an I-20 car. Nonetheless, the primary grievance of the complainant is based on the allegation that the accused petitioner No.1 Arun Kumar is a drug addict and also suffers from epileptic fits. The complainant alleged that her husband was admitted in the DMC Hospital, Ludhiana in the year 2017, but she was not permitted to meet him, whereupon, she became apprehensive and her parents convened a meeting of Panchayat, where the family of the accused was reproached that Arun Kumar was a drug addict and this fact was covered up by them from the complainant and her family. The relationship fell out thereafter. Considering the tenor of the allegations set out in the statement of the complainant, I am of the opinion that there is no justification whatsoever for sustaining the charges and allowing the trial to be continued against the petitioner No.2 Pradeep Kumar and the petitioner No.3 Smt. Usha Rani as their involvement in the case is totally unwarranted and unjust. In support of this conclusion, reference may be had to the following observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Sharma (supra) :- “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 498A 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 Section 498-A alleging harassment of married women. We have 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. This Court had earlier observed that a serious review of the provision was warranted. The matter also appears to have been considered by the Law Commission, the Malimath Committee, the Committee on Petitions in the Rajya Sabha, the Home Ministry, which have been referred to in the earlier part of the Judgment. The abuse of the provision was also noted in the judgments of this Court referred to earlier. Some High Courts have issued directions to check such abuse. In Arnesh Kumar ( AIR 2014 SC 2756 ) (supra) this Court gave directions to safeguard uncalled for arrests. The abuse of the provision was also noted in the judgments of this Court referred to earlier. Some High Courts have issued directions to check such abuse. In Arnesh Kumar ( AIR 2014 SC 2756 ) (supra) this Court gave directions to safeguard uncalled for arrests. Recommendation has also been made by the Law Commission to make the offence compoundable.” In view of the discussion made hereinabove, I am of the opinion that allowing continuance of the proceedings of the criminal case against the petitioner No.2 Pradeep Kumar and the petitioner No.3 Smt. Usha Rani, is not expedient in the interest of justice and rather, amounts to a gross abuse of process of Court. Hence, the instant criminal miscellaneous petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed in part. The impugned orders dated 05.12.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge, Women Atrocities & Dowry Cases, Sri Ganganagar in Criminal Revision Petition No.35/2019 and dated 02.02.2019 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar in Criminal Regular Case No.214/2018 are quashed and set aside qua the petitioner No.2 and petitioner No.3. However, trial of the petitioner No.1 Arun Kumar shall continue.