JUDGMENT G.S. ahluwalia, J. - By this common order M.Cr.C. No.35599/2021 filed by Smt. Revti Devi and Surendra Naroliya as well as M.Cr.C. No.37501/2021 filed by K.K. Naroliya and Smt. Radha Naroliya shall be decided. 2. Since both these applications have been filed for quashment of FIR in Crime No.568/2018 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Morena for offence under Sections 498-a, 506, 34 of IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition act as well as the criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No.308/2019 pending in the Court of JMFC, Morena, accordingly, the allegations made against each and every applicant shall be considered separately. 3. The respondent no.2 lodged an FIR on 14/6/2018 on the allegations that she got married to the co-accused Mrigendra Naroliya on 22/4/2015 in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals. Total amount of Rs.12,00,000/- was spent for the marriage, whereas Rs.6,00,000/-were given in cash. Similarly Rs.1,50,000/- in cash were given in the engagement ceremony and Rs.1,50,000/- were spent for giving gifts and making arrangements of the function of engagement and in all Rs.15,00,000/- were spent for marriage of the respondent no.2. It is alleged that when respondent no.2 went to her matrimonial house, a further demand of Rs.5,00,000/- was made by her husband-Mrigendra Naroliya, father-in-law Krishnakumar Naroliya, mother-in-law-Smt. Radha and younger brother-in-law Surendra and pressure was put on her that since respondent no.2 is short heighted therefore, her children would also be short. accordingly, in-laws of respondent no.2 started harassing her mentally and physically. On several occasions the contraceptive pills were given to her and on various occasions, threat was given that her husband-Mrigendra Naroliya would perform second marriage. Her in-laws were always threatening that if she wants to stay back in her matrimonial house, then she should maintain silence. In the meanwhile, the respondent no.2 expressed her willingness to carry on her studies. although fees was given, but it was also threatened that since the father-in-law of the respondent no.2 recruits Home-guards after taking illegal gratification, therefore, even if their money goes in vain, they will not have any grievance, but a conspiracy would be hatched against her. Thereafter, her studies were stopped and she was compelled to stay back in her matrimonial house without any expectation. The in-laws were harassing her physically and mentally. Thereafter, her studies were stopped and she was compelled to stay back in her matrimonial house without any expectation. The in-laws were harassing her physically and mentally. She was never allowed to conceive and when she insisted that she wants to conceive, then her father-in-law K.K. Naroliya thought that since he has not retired so far, therefore, he may get implicated in a case, therefore, she was sent to Delhi alongwith her husband-Mrigendra Naroliya. Even in Delhi, Mrigendra Naroliya did not give her the right of a wife and forcibly exploited her physically and contraceptive pills were forcibly administered to her. She was kept locked in the room, whereas during winter season, he compelled her to sleep on the maznine floor and she was not allowed to talk to any member of her family. Whenever her family members used to call her, their phone calls were not received. When her condition deteriorated, then her husband-Mrigendra Naroliya left her in Morena. Her father-in-law and mother-in-law were also exploiting her mentally. When her family members came to know about her deteriorating physical condition, then she was sent back to her parental home. When her mother could not tolerate her mental condition, then a Panchayat was convened and the in-laws were persuaded to save the married life of the respondent no.2 and accordingly, she was sent to Delhi. In Delhi, her physical and mental exploitation continued and her nude videographs were prepared, but even then she tried to pacify her husband and never made any complaint against him, however, she was never allowed to talk to her mother. When her mother came to Delhi to meet her, then her husband extended a threat to kill the complainant and also took out a knife. accordingly, her mother called the police and thereafter the husband of the complainant started extending threat to kill himself and accordingly, the police pacified the situation and also issued strict instructions to Mrigendra Naroliya to keep respondent no.2 peacefully. Thereafter, the husband of the respondent no.2 was transferred to Jaipur and on the pretext that he would require at least two months to settle down, left the respondent no.2 in the house of her Tauji. The respondent no.2 tried to contact her husband on phone, but Mrigendra Naroliya never received her phone calls. Thereafter, the husband of the respondent no.2 was transferred to Jaipur and on the pretext that he would require at least two months to settle down, left the respondent no.2 in the house of her Tauji. The respondent no.2 tried to contact her husband on phone, but Mrigendra Naroliya never received her phone calls. When the respondent no.2 also tried to contact her father-in-law and mother-in-law, then they also did not receive her phone calls and broke all the relationship and when she went to her matrimonial house at Morena, then she was not allowed to enter inside the house by her mother-in-law as well as younger brother-in-law and also extended a threat that first of all she should bring an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and only then, she would be allowed to enter in her matrimonial house. accordingly, a complaint was made by the respondent no.2 in Police Station Mahila Thana, Padav, District Gwalior and reconciliation proceedings were undertaken, but her husband told the Counsellors that he would take the matter to the Court and thereafter, he sent the papers for divorce and accordingly, he misled the police also. The police is also not taking any action in the matter and accordingly, she approached the Women Commission, Home-guard Commandant Jabalpur and Sagar DIG, but she did not get any justice. Thereafter, outside the Family Court premises, her husband-Mrigendra Naroliya and Bua Revti extended a threat to respondent no.2 and her mother by saying that it was merely a game and respondent no.2 may do whatever she wants but she would not be able to cause any loss/damage to her in-laws nor they would not return even a single penny. Since, she is not having her father, therefore, even if she is killed, then they would purchase the police and accordingly, a complaint was lodged and on the basis of the said complaint, FIR in question was registered. Smt. Revti Devi-applicant No.1 in M.Cr.C. No.35599/2021 4. This Court has already reproduced the entire FIR and it is clear from the FIR that no allegation of any demand of dowry or harassment on account of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry has been made against Smt. Revti Devi. Smt. Revti Devi-applicant No.1 in M.Cr.C. No.35599/2021 4. This Court has already reproduced the entire FIR and it is clear from the FIR that no allegation of any demand of dowry or harassment on account of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry has been made against Smt. Revti Devi. The only allegation which has been levelled against Smt. Revti Devi that on one day she had threatened respondent no.2 and her mother outside the Family Court that a game is going on and she may do whatever she wants, but she would not be able to cause any harm to her in-laws and they would not return even single penny and since respondent no.2 is not having her father, therefore, even if she is killed, then they would purchase the police. This allegation by itself cannot be said to be cruelty within the meaning of cruelty defined under Section 498-a of IPC. There is no allegation of demand of dowry against Smt. Revti Devi. The only allegation is that certain threats were extended to respondent no.2. It is not the allegation that Smt. Revti Devi had extended a threat to kill respondent no.2. On the contrary, the allegations are that even if respondent no.2 is killed, then they would purchase the police. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination an offence under Section 506 of IPC would be made out. Furthermore, the Supreme Court in the case of Kansraj Vs. State of Punjab reported in (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 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 the husband are required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. By mere conjectures and implications such relations cannot be held guilty for the offence relating to dowry deaths. In cases where such accusations are made, the overt acts attributed to persons other than the husband are required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. By mere conjectures and implications such 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.' The Supreme Court in the case of Monju Roy Vs. State of West Bengal, reported in (2015) 13 SCC 693 , has held as under: '8.While we do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by the courts below that the deceased was subjected to harassment on account of non-fulfillment of dowry demand, we do find merit in the submission that possibility of naming all the family members by way of exaggeration is not ruled out. In Kans Raj v. State of Punjab, (2000) 5 SCC 207 , this Court observed : (SCC p. 215, para 5) '5......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.' The Court has, thus, to be careful in summoning distant relatives without there being specific material. Only the husband, his parents or at best close family members may be expected to demand dowry or to harass the wife but not distant relations, unless there is tangible material to support allegations made against such distant relations. Only the husband, his parents or at best close family members may be expected to demand dowry or to harass the wife but not distant relations, unless there is tangible material to support allegations made against such distant relations. Mere naming of distant relations is not enough to summon them in absence of any specific role and material to support such role. 9. In Raja Lal Singh vs. State of Jharkhand, (2007) 15 SCC 415 , it was observed : (SCC p. 419, para 14) '14. No doubt, some of the witnesses e.g. PW 5 Dashrath Singh, who is the father of the deceased Gayatri, and PW 3 Santosh Kr. Singh, brother of the deceased, have stated that the deceased Gayatri told them that dowry was demanded by not only Raja Lal Singh, but also the appellants Pradip Singh and his wife Sanjana Devi, but we are of the opinion that it is possible that the names of Pradip Singh and Sanjana Devi have been introduced only to spread the net wide as often happens in cases like under Sections 498-a and 394 IPC, as has been observed in several decisions of this Court e.g. in Kamesh Panjiyar v. State of Bihar [ (2005) 2 SCC 388 ], etc. Hence, we allow the appeal of Pradip Singh and Sanjana Devi and set aside the impugned judgments of the High Court and the trial court insofar as it relates to them and we direct that they be released forthwith unless required in connection with some other case.' ****** 11. The Court has to adopt pragmatic view and when a girl dies an unnatural death, allegation of demand of dowry or harassment which follows cannot be weighed in golden scales. at the same time, omnibus allegation against all family members particularly against brothers and sisters and other relatives do not stand on same footing as husband and parents. In such case, apart from general allegation of demand of dowry, the court has to be satisfied that harassment was also caused by all the named members.' The Supreme Court in the case of Chandralekha & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & anr. reported in 2013 (1) UC 155 has held as under:- '8. We must, at the outset, state that the High Court's view on jurisdiction meets with our approval and we confirm the view. v. State of Rajasthan & anr. reported in 2013 (1) UC 155 has held as under:- '8. We must, at the outset, state that the High Court's view on jurisdiction meets with our approval and we confirm the view. However, after a careful perusal of the FIR and after taking into consideration the attendant circumstances, we are of the opinion that the FIR lodged by respondent 2 insofar as it relates to appellants 1, 2 and 3 deserves to be quashed. The allegations are extremely general in nature. No specific role is attributed to each of the appellants. Respondent 2 has stated that after the marriage, she resided with her husband at ahmedabad. It is not clear whether appellants 1, 2 and 3 were residing with them at ahmedabad. The marriage took place on 9/7/2002 and respondent 2 left her matrimonial home on 15/2/2003 i.e. within a period of seven months. Thereafter, respondent 2 took no steps to file any complaint against the appellants. Six years after she left the house, the present FIR is lodged making extremely vague and general allegations against appellants 1, 2 and 3. It is important to remember that appellant 2 is a married sister-in-law. In our opinion, such extra ordinary delay in lodging the FIR raises grave doubt about the truthfulness of allegations made by respondent 2 against appellants 1, 2 and 3, which are, in any case, general in nature. We have no doubt that by making such reckless and vague allegations, respondent 2 has tried to rope them in this case along with her husband. We are of the confirmed opinion that continuation of the criminal proceedings against appellants 1, 2 and 3 pursuant to this FIR is an abuse of process of law. In the interest of justice, therefore, the FIR deserves to be quashed insofar as it relates to appellants 1, 2 and 3.' The Supreme Court in the case of K. Subba Rao and others Vs. State of Telangana reported in (2018) 14 SCC 452 has held as under : 5. a perusal of the charge-sheet and the supplementary charge-sheet discloses the fact that the appellants are not the immediate family members of the third respondent/husband. They are the maternal uncles of the third respondent. State of Telangana reported in (2018) 14 SCC 452 has held as under : 5. a perusal of the charge-sheet and the supplementary charge-sheet discloses the fact that the appellants are not the immediate family members of the third respondent/husband. They are the maternal uncles of the third respondent. Except the bald statement that they supported the third respondent who was harassing the second respondent for dowry and that they conspired with the third respondent for taking away his child to the U.S.a., nothing else indicating their involvement in the crime was mentioned. The appellants approached the High Court when the investigation was pending. The charge-sheet and the supplementary charge-sheet were filed after disposal of the case by the High Court. 6. Criminal proceedings are not normally interdicted by us at the interlocutory stage unless there is an abuse of the process of a court. This Court, at the same time, does not hesitate to interfere to secure the ends of justice. See State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal. The courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out. See Kans Raj v. State of Punjab and Kailash Chandra agrawal v. State of U.P. In the case of Preeti Gupta Vs. State of Jharkhand reported in aIR 2010 SC 3363 it has been held by the Supreme Court as under: 34. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualised by the complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations. 35. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a Herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating the husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. at times, even after the conclusion of the criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The tendency of implicating the husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. at times, even after the conclusion of the criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment of husband's close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complainant are required to be scrutinised with great care and circumspection. 36. Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony and bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter of common knowledge that in cases filed by the complainant if the husband or the husband's relations had to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of an amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful. * * 39. When the facts and circumstances of the case are considered in the background of legal principles set out in the preceding paragraphs, then it would be unfair to compel the appellants to undergo the rigmarole of a criminal trial. In the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to quash the complaint against the appellants. as a result, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside. Consequently, this appeal is allowed. In the case of Neelu Chopra and another Vs. Bharti reported in (2009) 10 SCC 184 , it has been held by the Supreme Court, as under : 9. In order to lodge a proper complaint, mere mention of the sections and the language of those sections is not the be all and end all of the matter. What is required to be brought to the notice of the court is the particulars of the offence committed by each and every accused and the role played by each and every accused in committing of that offence. 10. When we see the complaint, the complaint is sadly vague. It does not show as to which accused has committed what offence and what is the exact role played by these appellants in the commission of offence. 10. When we see the complaint, the complaint is sadly vague. It does not show as to which accused has committed what offence and what is the exact role played by these appellants in the commission of offence. There could be said something against Rajesh, as the allegations are made against him more precisely but he is no more and has already expired. Under such circumstances, it would be an abuse of the process of law to allow the prosecution to continue against the aged parents of Rajesh, the present appellants herein, on the basis of a vague and general complaint which is silent about the precise acts of the appellants. The Supreme Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P. Reported in (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 in G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad 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: (SCC p. 698, para 12) '12. There has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes 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. Their Lordships observed therein with which we entirely agree that: (SCC p. 698, para 12) '12. There has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes 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 disputes. 5. Thus, it is clear that in order to prosecute the near and dear relatives of the husband of the complainant, the allegation should be specific and not omnibus & vague. Criminal intimidation has been defined under Section 503 of IPC, which provides that whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding execution of the said act. The allegations that her in-laws would not return even a single penny and even if she is killed, then they would purchase the police, would not bring the act of Smt. Revti Devi within the meaning of criminal intimidation. as already pointed out there is no allegation of any demand of dowry or humiliation or harassment on account of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. as already pointed out there is no allegation of any demand of dowry or humiliation or harassment on account of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. Thus, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution of the applicant-Smt. Revti Devi for offence under Sections 498-a, 506, 34 of IPC read with Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition act will result in failure of justice. 6. accordingly, the FIR in Crime No.568/2018 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Morena as well as further proceedings in Criminal Case No.308/2019 pending before JMFC, Morena are hereby quashed qua the applicant-Smt. Revti Devi. K.K. Naroliya, Smt. Radha Naroliya-applicants no.1 and 2 in M.Cr.C. No.37501/2021 and Surendra Naroliya-applicant No.2 in M.Cr.C. No.35599/2021. 7. The allegations made by the respondent no.2 in her FIR against above-mentioned three applicants have already been narrated in detail. There are specific allegations against K.K. Naroliya, Smt. Radha Naroliya and Surendra Naroliya. 8. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicants that reconciliation proceedings had taken place, but the respondent no.2 did not allege anything against her in-laws/applicants. Furthermore, in the FIR itself it is mentioned that now her husband has filed a petition for divorce. In fact, the husband of respondent no.2 had filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage act for grant of divorce and only after receiving notice of the said divorce petition, the FIR was lodged on 14/6/2018. Similarly, the respondent no.2 has also filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage act, which is still pending. Furthermore, a parallel enquiry under Section 36 of Cr.P.C. was conducted by CSP, Morena on the orders of Superintendent of Police, Morena and the CSP, Morena by his report dated 16/5/2018 has observed that since the husband of respondent no.2 has already instituted a petition for grant of divorce, therefore, the allegations should be considered and investigated after the said case is decided. It is further submitted that K.K. Karoliya is posted in Jabalpur and therefore, there was no occasion for him to harass or humiliate the respondent no.2. Thus, it is submitted that on the aforesaid grounds also, the FIR lodged against the applicant is liable to be quashed. 9. So far as the question of reconciliation proceedings are concerned, the Counsellors were not considering the allegation against the applicants. Thus, it is submitted that on the aforesaid grounds also, the FIR lodged against the applicant is liable to be quashed. 9. So far as the question of reconciliation proceedings are concerned, the Counsellors were not considering the allegation against the applicants. Their jurisdiction was to somehow reconcile the dispute between the husband and wife. Reconciliation proceedings are independent proceedings and do not have any effect on the criminal proceedings. Furthermore, from the reconciliation proceedings it is clear that the respondent no.2 had expressed her willingness to stay with her husband, but it was the husband of the respondent no.2 who was not willing to keep her with him. Every time he insisted that he is ready to keep her but he would keep her in Morena and not with him. Even if the respondent no.2 in order to save her married life did not make any allegation against her other in-laws, then it does not mean that the allegation made by her in the FIR against the applicants are false. 10. So far as the lodging of FIR after the receipt of notice under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage act is concerned, the FIR cannot be quashed on the said ground. The Supreme Court in the case of Kamaladevi agarwal Vs. State of W.B. and others reported in (2002) 1 SCC 555 has held as under:- '15. We have already noticed that the nature and scope of civil and criminal proceedings and the standard of proof required in both matters is different and distinct. Whereas in civil proceedings the matter can be decided on the basis of probabilities, the criminal case has to be decided by adopting the standard of proof of 'beyond reasonable doubt'. a Constitution Bench of this Court, dealing with similar circumstances, in M.S. Sheriff v. State of Madras [ aIR 1954 SC 397 : 1954 Cri LJ 1019] held that where civil and criminal cases are pending, precedence shall be given to criminal proceedings. Detailing the reasons for the conclusions, the Court held: (aIR p. 399, paras 15-16) '15. as between the civil and the criminal proceedings we are of the opinion that the criminal matters should be given precedence. There is some difference of opinion in the High Courts of India on this point. Detailing the reasons for the conclusions, the Court held: (aIR p. 399, paras 15-16) '15. as between the civil and the criminal proceedings we are of the opinion that the criminal matters should be given precedence. There is some difference of opinion in the High Courts of India on this point. No hard and fast rule can be laid down but we do not consider that the possibility of conflicting decisions in the civil and criminal courts is a relevant consideration. The law envisages such an eventuality when it expressly refrains from making the decision of one court binding on the other, or even relevant, except for certain limited purposes, such as sentence or damages. The only relevant consideration here is the likelihood of embarrassment. 16. another factor which weighs with us is that a civil suit often drags on for years and it is undesirable that a criminal prosecution should wait till everybody concerned has forgotten all about the crime. The public interests demand that criminal justice should be swift and sure; that the guilty should be punished while the events are still fresh in the public mind and that the innocent should be absolved as early as is consistent with a fair and impartial trial. another reason is that it is undesirable to let things slide till memories have grown too dim to trust. This however, is not a hard and fast rule. Special considerations obtaining in any particular case might make some other course more expedient and just. For example, the civil case or the other criminal proceeding may be so near its end as to make it inexpedient to stay it in order to give precedence to a prosecution ordered under Section 476. But in this case we are of the view that the civil suits should be stayed till the criminal proceedings have finished.' 17. In view of the preponderance of authorities to the contrary, we are satisfied that the High Court was not justified in quashing the proceedings initiated by the appellant against the respondents. We are also not impressed by the argument that as the civil suit was pending in the High Court, the Magistrate was not justified to proceed with the criminal case either in law or on the basis of propriety. We are also not impressed by the argument that as the civil suit was pending in the High Court, the Magistrate was not justified to proceed with the criminal case either in law or on the basis of propriety. Criminal cases have to be proceeded with in accordance with the procedure as prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure and the pendency of a civil action in a different court even though higher in status and authority, cannot be made a basis for quashing of the proceedings.' The Supreme Court in the case of Pratibha Vs. Rameshwari Devi and others reported in (2007) 12 SCC 369 has held as under:- '14. From a plain reading of the findings arrived at by the High Court while quashing the FIR, it is apparent that the High Court had relied on extraneous considerations and acted beyond the allegations made in the FIR for quashing the same in the exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code. We have already noted the illustrations enumerated in Bhajan Lal's case and from a careful reading of these illustrations, we are of the view that the allegations emerging from the FIR are not covered by any of the illustrations as noted hereinabove. For example, we may take up one of the findings of the High Court as noted herein above. The High Court has drawn an adverse inference on account of the FIR being lodged on 31st December, 2001 while the appellant was forced out of the matrimonial home on 25th May, 2001. 15. In our view, in the facts and circumstance of the case, the High Court was not justified in drawing an adverse inference against the appellant- wife for lodging the FIR on 31st December, 2001 on the ground that she had left the matrimonial home atleast six months before that. This is because, in our view, the High Court had failed to appreciate that the appellant and her family members were, during this period, making all possible efforts to enter into a settlement so that the respondent No.2-husband would take her back to the matrimonial home. If any complaint was made during this period, there was every possibility of not entering into any settlement with the respondent No.2-husband. 16. If any complaint was made during this period, there was every possibility of not entering into any settlement with the respondent No.2-husband. 16. It is pertinent to note that the complaint was filed only when all efforts to return to the matrimonial home had failed and the respondent No.2-husband had filed a divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage act, 1955. That apart, in our view, filing of a divorce petition in a Civil Court cannot be a ground to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Code as it is well settled that criminal and civil proceedings are separate and independent and the pendency of a civil proceeding cannot bring to an end a criminal proceeding even if they arise out of the same set of facts. Such being the position, we are, therefore, of the view that the High Court while exercising its powers under Section 482 of the Code has gone beyond the allegations made in the FIR and has acted in excess of its jurisdiction and, therefore, the High Court was not justified in quashing the FIR by going beyond the allegations made in the FIR or by relying on extraneous considerations.' 11. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that if the respondent no.2 waited and did not lodge the FIR under the hope and belief that her married life may be saved and lodged the FIR only after realizing that her husband has filed an application for grant of divorce, then the patience shown by respondent no.2 cannot be taken to her discredit for holding that the FIR was lodged by way of counterblast. Furthermore, the findings given by the Civil Court do not have any bearing on the Criminal Court as the degree of proof is different. 12. So far as the contention that the CSP, Morena by its report dated 16/5/2018 did not find the allegations true is concerned, the same cannot be accepted for the following reasons:- i- a parallel enquiry even in exercise of powers under Section 36 of Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. 12. So far as the contention that the CSP, Morena by its report dated 16/5/2018 did not find the allegations true is concerned, the same cannot be accepted for the following reasons:- i- a parallel enquiry even in exercise of powers under Section 36 of Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. This Court in the case of Deepak @ Preetam Verma and another vs. State of M.P. and another by order dated 11/9/2018 passed in M.Cr.C. No.12592/2018 had held that a parallel enquiry without withdrawing the investigation from the Investigating Officer is not permissible and any report given in a parallel enquiry cannot be looked into. The said order was assailed and Supreme Court by order dated 18/1/2022 passed in SLP (Criminal) No.1345/2019 (Surendra Singh Gaur vs. State of M.P. and others), has held as under:- The present petitioners have approached in their own rights to question the observations/remarks which have been recorded by the learned Judge in the order impugned in reference to the manner in which an inquiry was conduced parallel to the investigation which was undertaken by the Investigating Officer in reference to FIR in Crime No. 75/2017. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length and we are of the view that neither Section 36 of the Code nor the circulars of which a reference has been made during the course of arguments in any way provides for holding an independent and parallel inquiry along with the investigation going ahead in reference to the FIR in Crime No. 75/2017. In the instant case, a complaint was made for holding fair investigation in reference to the FIR in Crime No. 75/2017, we find no reason the officers under whose instructions an independent inquiry was initiated apart from the investigation which was going ahead in reference to the crime, in contravention of the procedure prescribed by law. after the matter is examined at length by the High Court under the impugned judgment(s) for which reference has been made that an independent inquiry which was conducted in reference to the FIR in Crime No. 75/2017 was in no manner contemplated by law and in this reference observations have been made in regard to the conduct of the officers in holding an inquiry in reference to the FIR in Crime No. 75/2017. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State filed their counter affidavit and has placed on record a circular dated 26th June, 2010 under the instructions of the Inspector General of Police, Madhya Pradesh. We find that the circular of the State Government is in conformity with Section 36 of the Code, but the procedure which was followed by the officers in holding inquiry was not in consonance with the circular of which a reference has been made by the High Court under the impugned judgment. after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and taking note of the material on record, we find no error being committed by the High Court in the judgment impugned, which may call for our interference under article 136 of the Constitution. Consequently, both the petitions fail and are dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. 13. accordingly, the enquiry report dated 16/4/2018 given by the CSP, Morena has no sanctity in the eye of law. Even otherwise, he has not given any finding with regard to the correctness of the allegations, but he has merely stated that since a divorce petition is pending, therefore, the allegations should be considered and investigated only after the divorce petition is disposed of. 14. So far as the contention of the counsel for the applicants that the applicant-K.K. Naroliya is working as District Commandant, Home-guard and earlier he was posted in Panna and thereafter, he was transferred to Jabalpur is concerned, it is suffice to mention here that it is not a case under Section 302 of IPC where the question of plea of alibi may arise. Here the question is regarding demand of dowry & harassment and the physical presence of any of the accused at all point of time is not required. Furthermore, the Supreme Court in the case of Taramani Parakh Vs. State of M.P. reported in (2015) 11 SCC 260 has held as under:- '10. The law relating to quashing is well settled. If the allegations are absurd or do not make out any case or if it can be held that there is abuse of process of law, the proceedings can be quashed but if there is a triable case the court does not go into reliability or otherwise of the version or the counter-version. If the allegations are absurd or do not make out any case or if it can be held that there is abuse of process of law, the proceedings can be quashed but if there is a triable case the court does not go into reliability or otherwise of the version or the counter-version. In matrimonial cases, the courts have to be cautious when omnibus allegations are made particularly against relatives who are not generally concerned with the affairs of the couple. We may refer to the decisions of this Court dealing with the issue. 11 and 12. XXXXXX 13. In the present case, the complaint is as follows: 'Sir, it is submitted that I was married on 18-11-2009 with Sidharath Parakh s/o Manak Chand Parakh r/o Sarafa Bazar in front of Radha Krishna Market, Gwalior according to the Hindu rites and customs. In the marriage my father had given gold and silver ornaments, cash amount and household goods according to his capacity. after the marriage when I went to my matrimonial home, I was treated nicely by the members of the family. When on the second occasion I went to my matrimonial home, my husband, father-in-law and mother-in -law started harassing me for not bringing the dowry and started saying that I should bring from my father 25-30 tolas of gold and Rs 2,00,000 in cash and only then they would keep me in the house otherwise not. On account of this my husband also used to beat me and my father-in-law and my mother-in-law used to torture me by giving the taunts. In this connection I used to tell my father Kundanmal Oswal, my mother Smt Prem Lata Oswal, uncle ashok Rai Sharma and uncle Ved Prakash Mishra from time to time. On 2-4-2010 the members of the family of my matrimonial home forcibly sent me to the house of my parents in Ganj Basoda along with my brother Deepak. They snatched my clothes and ornaments and kept with them. Since then till today my husband has been harassing me on the telephone and has not come to take me back. Being compelled, I have been moving this application before you. Sir, it is prayed that action be taken against husband Sidharath Parakh, my father-in-law Manak Chand Parakh and my mother-in-law Smt Indira Parakh for torturing me on account of demanding dowry.' 14. Being compelled, I have been moving this application before you. Sir, it is prayed that action be taken against husband Sidharath Parakh, my father-in-law Manak Chand Parakh and my mother-in-law Smt Indira Parakh for torturing me on account of demanding dowry.' 14. From a reading of the complaint, it cannot be held that even if the allegations are taken as proved no case is made out. There are allegations against Respondent 2 and his parents for harassing the complainant which forced her to leave the matrimonial home. Even now she continues to be separated from the matrimonial home as she apprehends lack of security and safety and proper environment in the matrimonial home. The question whether the appellant has in fact been harassed and treated with cruelty is a matter of trial but at this stage, it cannot be said that no case is made out. Thus, quashing of proceedings before the trial is not permissible.' 15. In order to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., this Court can consider the un-controverted allegations only. The defence of the accused persons cannot be considered. Since, prima facie material is available on record warranting prosecution of K.K. Naroliya, Smt. Radha Raroliya and Surendra Naroliya, therefore, neither the FIR nor the criminal proceedings pending against them can be quashed. 16. accordingly, the applications filed by K.K. Naroliya, Smt. Radha Naroliya and Surendra Naroliya in M.Cr.C. Nos.37501/2021 and 35599/2021 are hereby Dismissed whereas application filed by Smt. Revati in M.Cr.C. No. 35599/2021 is allowed.