JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Mahesh Tewari, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Nilesh Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the O.P.No.2 and Mrs. Priya Shrestha, the learned counsel for the respondent State. 2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated 13.11.2020 passed in Seraidhela P.S.Case No.147/2019, corresponding to G.R.No.2607 of 2020 whereby cognizance of offence under sections 498- A/307 IPC and also under section 3/ 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and under section 3/ 4 of the Prevention of Witch Craft Act has been taken against the petitioner, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad. 3. In short, the written complaint was filed before the police, alleging therein that : The marriage of the son of the petitioner with the opposite party no.2 on 5.3.2017. It is alleged that at the time of marriage, her father had given Rs.20 lakh in cheque and Rs.5 lakh cash along with jewelleries and household articles. Further on demand of accused no.1 a Audi Car was also given taking loan from bank. After few days, she was subjected to cruelty. After a while she became mother of daughter, the accused persons did not mend their ways and continued with acts of cruelty against the informant. She was asked to get more dowry and further the accused persons also called informant’s mother as Daain and also send SMS branding her as witch. On 25.2.2019 the son of the petitioner had struck the informant with danda on head and also tried to kill her by strangulating her. The informant then came to her parent house and underwent treatment. The accused persons did not mend their ways even after intervention by the parents of the informant to reconcile between them. The son of the petitioner further gave threat that he would kill the informant. 4. Mr. Mahesh Tewari, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a widow lady who happens to be mother in law of the O.P.No.2 has been unnecessarily dragged in this case. He submits that in the entire complaint, there is no direct allegation against the petitioner and the allegations are against the son of this petitioner who happens to be husband of the O.P.No.2. He submits that in the entire complaint, there is no direct allegation against the petitioner and the allegations are against the son of this petitioner who happens to be husband of the O.P.No.2. He further submits that the son of the petitioner filed A.B.A. No.6733 of 2019 which was allowed by order dated 04.12.2019 with condition that he will return a sum of Rs.31 lakhs and the Audi car to the informant and on that ground the anticipatory bail was granted. He submits that in terms of the order a sum of Rs.31 lakhs has already been returned to the informant. He further submits that divorce suit has been filed by the son of the petitioner which was numbered as Original Suit No.230/2020 and the marriage was annulled by order dated 26.03.2021. He submits that although the informant has challenged that decree of divorce before this Court which is pending and that was numbered as F.A. No.30 of 2021. He draws the attention of the Court to the counter affidavit filed by the O.P.No.2 and by way of referring the paragraphs submits that even in the counter affidavit in clear terms nothing has been stated against the petitioner who is mother in law of the O.P.No.2. He further elaborated his argument by way of submitting that in the case arising out of section 498-A IPC the Hon’ble Apex Court has deprecated arraying the entire family members and to buttress his such argument, he relied in the case of “Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand”, (2010) 7 SCC 667 , Paragraph nos. 32 and 33 of the said judgment are quoted hereinbelow :- “32. 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 is also a matter of serious concern. 33. The learned members of the Bar have enormous social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fibre of family life is not ruined or demolished. They must ensure that exaggerated versions of small incidents should not be reflected in the criminal complaints. 33. The learned members of the Bar have enormous social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fibre of family life is not ruined or demolished. They must ensure that exaggerated versions of small incidents should not be reflected in the criminal complaints. Majority of the complaints are filed either on their advice or with their concurrence. The learned members of the Bar who belong to a noble profession must maintain its noble traditions and should treat every complaint under Section 498-A as a basic human problem and must make serious endeavour to help the parties in arriving at an amicable resolution of that human problem. They must discharge their duties to the best of their abilities to ensure that social fibre, peace and tranquillity of the society remains intact. The members of the Bar should also ensure that one complaint should not lead to multiple cases.” 5. Relying on this judgment, Mr. Tewari, the learned counsel submits that the Court in the matrimonial disputes may interfere where omnibus allegations are there. He further submits that this aspect of the matter was again considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and Ors. vs. State of Bihar and Ors.” reported in 2022 LiveLaw SC 141 arising out of S.L.P. Cr. No.206 of 2020 and further arguing the matter he submits that again the case law of “Priti Gupta” (supra) has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph nos.18 and 19 of the said judgment and held, which follows as under: “18. The powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. The Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution but the Court’s failing to use the power for advancement of justice can also lead to grave injustice. 19. The Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution but the Court’s failing to use the power for advancement of justice can also lead to grave injustice. 19. The High Court should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where all the facts are incomplete and hazy; more so, when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of such magnitude that they cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceedings at any stage.” 6. On these grounds, Mr. Tewari, the learned counsel submits that the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioner is fit to be quashed. He further submits that so far section 307 IPC is concerned this is strictly not made out so far this petitioner is concerned who is mother in law of the O.P.No.2, however, looking into the contents of the FIR prima facie it appears that entire allegation so far as strangulation and assault are concerned, this is against the son of this petitioner. In the entire contents there is no allegation of assault by this lady and prima facie case under section 307 IPC so far as this petitioner is concerned, is not made out. 7. Per contra, Mr. Nilesh Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the O.P.no.2 submits that marriage took place on 05.03.2017 and a sum of Rs.20 lakhs was paid through cheque to the petitioner along with Audi car and jewellery and cash. He submits that out of said wedlock, they have been blessed with a female child and after born of the female child, the petitioner started torturing the informant. By way of drawing attention of the Court towards page no.32 of the counter affidavit he submits that these messages have been received from the mobile number of this petitioner and submits that such vulgarity is there which cannot be read in the open Court. He submits that looking into the entire allegations as well as the S.M.S which was part of the investigation, the learned court has taken cognizance. He submits that looking into the entire allegations as well as the S.M.S which was part of the investigation, the learned court has taken cognizance. He further submits that anticipatory bail was allowed on 04.12.2019 by this Court and in terms of anticipatory bail a sum of Rs.31 lakhs was returned which was tried to be taken back by way of filing a false case against the informant and her brothers and the mother which was filed on 16.07.2020 in which the petitioner has made solemn affirmation and submits that the court has taken cognizance under section 504, 505 IPC against the brother of the informant. He further submits that so far divorce was concerned that was ex-parte and an appeal against that is also pending before this Court. He further submits that once cognizance has been taken by the concerned court looking into the calls details and other materials on that stage, strict standard of proof is not to be applied at the stage of issuance of summons nor to examine the probable defence which the accused may take, and to buttress such argument, he relied in the case of “State of Gujarat v. Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta” [Criminal Appeal No.224 of 2019, arising out of S.L.P.(Cr.) No.6068 of 2017] reported in (2019) 20 SCC 539 , Paragraph nos. 52 and 53 of the said judgment are quoted hereinbelow: “52. As discussed earlier, while taking cognizance of an offence based upon a police report, it is the satisfaction of the Magistrate that there is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused. As discussed earlier, along with the second supplementary charge sheet, number of materials like statement of witnesses, Bank statement of the respondent-accused and his company Nile Trading Corporation and other Bank Statement, Call Detail Records and other materials were placed. Upon consideration of the second supplementary charge sheet and the materials placed thereon, the Magistrate satisfied himself that there is sufficient ground to proceed against the respondent and issued summons. The learned Single Judge, in our considered view, erred in interfering with theorder of the Magistrate in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 53. In our view, the learned Single Judge ought not to have gone into the merits of the matter when the matter is in nascent stage. The learned Single Judge, in our considered view, erred in interfering with theorder of the Magistrate in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 53. In our view, the learned Single Judge ought not to have gone into the merits of the matter when the matter is in nascent stage. When the prosecution relies upon the materials, strict standard of proof is not to be applied at the stage of issuance of summons nor to examine the probable defence which the accused may take. All that the court is required to do is to satisfy itself as to whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding. The learned Single Judge committed a serious error in going into the merits and demerits of the case and the impugned order is liable to be set aside.” 8. In the light of the above submission of the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on record. It is an admitted fact that O.P.No.2 and the son of the petitioner got married on 05.3.2017. The gift are not in dispute which is also substantiated by the order of this Court which was passed in A.B.A. No.6733 of 2019 contained in Annexure-4. The husband of the O.P.No.2 voluntarily agreed before the court to return a sum of Rs.31 lakhs along with Audi car. Looking into the complaint filed before the police by the O.P.No.2 it appears that there are allegations against this petitioner of calling her as Daain and sending of S.M.S by phone. A copy of the SMS was also annexed with the said complaint before the police which was the subject matter of investigation by the police. The contents of SMS has been annexed with the counter affidavit filed by the O.P.No.2 at page 32. Looking at page 32 which is subject matter of investigation, it is crystal clear that no prudent person can write such contents to her daughter in law and this content has also been investigated by the police. In the cognizance order apart from the charge sheet and the case diary the learned court has also gone through that SMS and thereafter has taken cognizance. In the cases where the entire family have been arrayed as accused on omnibus allegations the courts are interfering with the matter and in that view of the matter the judgment relied by Mr. In the cases where the entire family have been arrayed as accused on omnibus allegations the courts are interfering with the matter and in that view of the matter the judgment relied by Mr. Tewari in the case of “Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand”, (2010) 7 SCC 667 and “Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors.” (supra) are not in dispute. It is settled law that for calling an accused to face the trial by issuing summons strict standard of proof is not to be applied at the stage of issuance of summons nor to examine the probable defence which the accused may take. The prima facie materials are there which has supported the charge sheet as well as the SMS. The Court sitting under section 482 Cr.P.C is not required to roam into and come to the conclusion that the case is false and to interfere. Identical was the situation before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “State of Gujarat v. Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta” (supra). The Hon’ble Supreme Court has quashed the order of the High Court. 9. Since the cognizance has already been taken under section 307 IPC, it is open to the petitioner to agitate this point in the trial or at the time of framing of charge. 10. In view of the above facts and reasons and analysis and also looking to the S.M.S and the contents of the FIR as well as cognizance order, the Court comes to the conclusion that this is not a case to interfere under section 482 Cr.P.C. 11. Accordingly, Cr.M.P.No.19 of 2021 is dismissed. 12. Interim order dated 24.07.2021 stands vacated.