ORDER 1. This petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been preferred for quashment of FIR bearing Crime No.49/2021 registered at police station Mahila Thana, Agar Malwa, District Agar Malwa against the applicants for the offence punishable under sections 294, 323/34 and 498-A of IPC and also subsequent criminal proceedings pending against them. 2. Factual matrix giving rise to the instant case for just and proper adjudication of this petition are that applicants' son Rahul Ahirwar was married to the non-applicant No.2/complainant around three years back on 24.4.2019, as per Hindu rites and rituals. Complainant's father had given all the things of household according to his status. Applicants and their son co-accused Rahul initially treated the complainant well but thereafter, they started taunting her regarding dowry and told her to bring Rs.10.00 lacs from her father in order to purchase a plot at Ujjain Road. They also told her to bring jewellery and when the complainant denied saying her father is a retired person and unable to arrange that much amount, applicants told her to go back to her parents house and they will remarry their son. On 3.11.2021, at the time of Diwali, when the complainant was at her parental house, her husband came there and told her to take money from her parents for the purchase of plot. On 20.11.2021, when co-accused Rahul had beaten her, she made a phone call to her sister-in-law, who warned complainant's husband not to do any cruelty with her otherwise, they will file a complaint in the police station. Thereafter, complainant's husband left the complainant to her sister-in-law's residence at Sonwaye. The complainant called her brother who had taken her away to Agar to her parental home. Applicants and co-accused Rahul had tortured her physically and mentally. Thereafter, on 25.11.2021, she approached the police and on her oral complaint, FIR bearing Crime No.49/2021 was registered at police station Mahila Thana, Agar Malwa, District Agar Malwa against the applicants and their son co-accused Rahul for the offence punishable under sections 294, 323/34 and 498-A of IPC. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed. Hence, the instant petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants for quashment of FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings. 3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed. Hence, the instant petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants for quashment of FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants never made any demand of dowry and only vague and omnibus allegations with regard to demand of dowry have been made against them. The list of gift items said to be given by the complainant's parents to the applicants are of no value as no receipt of the dowry items has been produced. The complainant's father has no financial capacity to pay the amount alleged to be demanded by the applicants hence, the allegations alleged against the applicants are totally false and baseless. Admittedly, complainant was residing with her husband separately at Indore, while the applicants are living in their home-town at Shujalpur. Applicants have been falsely impleaded only to create pressure and mental torture over them, which is a clear misuse of provisions of section 498-A of IPC and the same is liable to be quashed. To bolster his submissions, counsel for the applicants has relied upon the following judgements :- (a) Sandeep Singh Bais and others v. State of M. P. and others, 2017 (3) Crimes 591 (MP) (b) Preeti Gupta and others v. State of Jharkhand and others, AIR 2010 SC 3363 (c) Geeta Mehrotra and another v. State of U.P. and another, AIR 2013 SC 181 (d) Mirza Iqbal and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, AIR 2022 SC 69 4. Learned counsel for the non-applicant/State as well as nonapplicant No.2/complainant have opposed the prayer and submits that applicants made dowry demand cruelty with the complainant. The allegations alleged against the applicants are substantiated by the submissions of the complainant as well as other independent witnesses. Therefore, at this stage, prayer made by the applicants for quashment of FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings pending against them are not acceptable and the petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. Heard, learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. 6. Upon perusal of the record, this fact is undisputed that applicants' son co-accused Rahul was married to the complainant on 24.4.2019 and since then, she was living with him. Complainant in her FIR specifically stated that address of the applicants village is Ugli, Shujalpur, District Shajapur. 5. Heard, learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. 6. Upon perusal of the record, this fact is undisputed that applicants' son co-accused Rahul was married to the complainant on 24.4.2019 and since then, she was living with him. Complainant in her FIR specifically stated that address of the applicants village is Ugli, Shujalpur, District Shajapur. She has nowhere stated that she was residing with the applicants at their home-town therefore, submissions made by the counsel for the applicants have force that complainant alongwith her husband co-accused Rahul were residing separately at Indore, while applicants are living in their home-town at Shujalpur. 7. Perusal of the FIR lodged by the complainant also reveals that complainant nowhere made any specific allegations with regard to demand of dowry and dowry demand cruelty against the applicants. She has stated about the acts of the applicants' son co-accused Rahul and made general and omnibus allegation against the applicants. In this regard, judgement pronounced by the apex Court in the case of Preeti Gupta and others (supra) and judgement of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sandeep Singh Bais and others (supra) can be relied upon, wherein the general and omnibus allegations of harassment of husband's close relatives, who had been living in different cities and rarely visit the place where the complainant resides were not found as cruelty under section 498-A of IPC. In this regard, the judgement pronounced by the apex Court Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra (supra) can be relied upon, wherein it has been observed as under :- 19. Coming to the facts of this case, when the contents of the FIR is perused, it is apparent that there are no allegations against Kumari Geeta Mehrotra and Ramji Mehrotra except casual reference of their names who 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. 20. 20. It would be relevant at this stage to take note of an apt observation of this Court recorded in the matter of G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad & Ors. reported in (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: “there has been an outburst of matrimonial dispute in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, 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 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 reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate the 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. 21. In yet another case reported in AIR 2003 SC 1386 in the matter of B.S. Joshi & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr. it was observed that there is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XXA containing section 498A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498A was added with a view to punish the husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. Section 498A was added with a view to punish the husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. But if the proceedings are initiated by the wife under section 498A against the husband and his relatives and subsequently she has settled her disputes with her husband and his relatives and the wife and husband agreed for mutual divorce, refusal to exercise inherent powers by the High Court would not be proper as it would prevent woman from settling earlier. Thus for the purpose of securing the ends of justice quashing of FIR becomes necessary, section 320 Cr.P.C. would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. It would however be a different matter depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether to exercise or not to exercise such a power. 22. In the instant matter, when the complainant and her husband are divorced as the complainant-wife secured an exparte decree of divorce, the same could have weighed with the High Court to consider whether proceeding initiated prior to the divorce decree was fit to be pursued in spite of absence of specific allegations at least against the brother and sister of the complainant’s husband and whether continuing with this proceeding could not have amounted to abuse of the process of the court. The High Court, however, seems not to have examined these aspects carefully and have thus side- tracked all these considerations merely on the ground that the territorial jurisdiction could be raised only before the magistrate conducting the trial. 23. In the instant case, the question of territorial jurisdiction was just one of the grounds for quashing the proceedings along with the other grounds and, therefore, the High Court should have examined whether the prosecution case was fit to be quashed on other grounds or not. At this stage, the question also crops up whether the matter is fit to be remanded to the High Court to consider all these aspects. At this stage, the question also crops up whether the matter is fit to be remanded to the High Court to consider all these aspects. But in matters arising out of a criminal case, fresh consideration by remanding the same would further result into a protracted and vexatious proceeding which is unwarranted as was held by this Court in the case of Ramesh v. State of Tamil Nadu (supra) that such a course of remand would be unnecessary and inexpedient as there was no need to prolong the controversy. The facts in this matter on this aspect was although somewhat different since the complainant had lodged the complaint after seven years of delay, yet in the instant matter the factual position remains that the complaint as it stands lacks ingredients constituting the offence under section 498A and section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act against the appellants who are sister and brother of the complainant’s husband and their involvement in the whole incident appears only by way of a casual inclusion of their names. Hence, it cannot be overlooked that it would be total abuse of the process of law if we were to remand the matter to the High Court to consider whether there were still any material to hold that the trial should proceed against them in spite of absence of prima facie material constituting the offence alleged against them. 24. However, we deem it appropriate to add by way of caution that we may not be misunderstood so as to infer that even if there are allegation of overt act indicating the complicity of the members of the family named in the FIR in a given case, cognizance would be unjustified but what we wish to emphasize by highlighting is that, if the FIR as it stands does not disclose specific allegation against accused more so against the co-accused specially in a matter arising out of matrimonial bickering, it would be clear abuse of the legal and judicial process to mechanically send the named accused in the FIR to undergo the trial unless of course the FIR discloses specific allegations which would persuade the Court to take cognizance of the offence alleged against the relatives of the main accused who are prima facie not found to have indulged in physical and mental torture of the complainantwife. It is the well settled principle laid down in cases too numerous to mention, that if the FIR did not disclose the commission of an offence, the court would be justified in quashing the proceedings preventing the abuse of the process of law. Simultaneously, the courts are expected to adopt a cautious approach in matters of quashing specially in cases of matrimonial dispute whether the FIR in fact discloses commission of an offence by the relatives of the principal accused or the FIR prima facie discloses a case of overimplication by involving the entire family of the accused at the instance of the complainant, who is out to settle her scores arising out of the teething problem or skirmish of domestic bickering while settling down in her new matrimonial surrounding. 8. In view of the aforesaid, in the absence of any specific allegation with regard to demand of dowry and also dowry demand cruelty, only on the basis of inconsistent, vague and general nature of allegations, the prosecution of the applicants is nothing but abuse of process of law, hence the petition is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The FIR bearing Crime No.49/2021 registered at police station Mahila Thana, Agar Malwa, District Agar Malwa against the applicants for the offence punishable under sections 294, 323/34 and 498-A of IPC and the subsequent criminal proceedings pending against them are hereby quashed. Applicants are discharged from the aforesaid charges. 9. Accordingly, the petition filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C. stands disposed of as indicated above. 10. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Court for information and necessary compliance/action without delay.