JUDGMENT : 1. By order dated 28.03.2018, notices were directed to be issued upon the O.P.No.2. Office note dated 10.05.2018 suggest that notices upon O.P.No.2 has been effected validly. Inspite of notice, which was served on 02.05.2018 appearance has not been made on behalf of the O.P.No.2. 2. Today on repeated call, nobody responded on behalf of the O.P.No.2. 3. Accordingly, this petition is heard on merit in absence of O.P.No.2. 4. This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal prosecution arising out of Complaint Case No.20/2017 including the order taking cognizance dated 04.05.2017, whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad proceeded against all accused persons u/s 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad. 5. The complaint has been filed alleging therein that: That the marriage of the complainant was solemnized with the petitioner no.1 on 06.05.2011 and thereafter she lived with her husband at the matrimonial home; That it is alleged that the accused persons started demanding Rs.5,00,000/- as additional dowry, and on refusal the accused persons started torturing her; That earlier the complainant had also filed C.P.Case No.2969/13 and another G.R.Case No.3121/14; That the complainant has also filed one maintenance case being M.P.Case No.106/14 before the Family Court, Dhanbad; That it is alleged that on 31.12.2016 at 6.00 p.m., the complainant on her mobile phone received threatening to withdraw all cases; and That finally on 01.01.2017 at 8.00 a.m. all accused persons came to complainant’s maike and abused the complainant and her family members. That it is further alleged that the accused persons assaulted and threatened of dire consequences. 6. Mr. Mukesh Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the marriage solemnized between the O.P.No.2 and the petitioner no.1, the husband, who is petitioner no.1, was very disturbed due to hot temperament and abusing nature of O.P.No.2 who never wanted to live together in the joint family. That the petitioner no.1 became so apprehensive of some mishaps due to behaviour of O.P.No.2 that he filed an informatory information petition no.680/2011 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur stating therein that the O.P.No.2 was not only ruining her life but also the life of petitioner and his parents, and finally, the petitioner no.2 made a complaint vide S.D.No.862/12 dated 31.12.2012 before the police apprehending institution of false cases against them. He further submits that the petitioner no.1 has been disowned by his parents due to perpetual disturbance caused by O.P.No.2 and the petitioner no.1 was residing in a separate rented house with his wife O.P.No.2. He submits that marital relation between the petitioner no.1 and O.P.No.2 reached to such a point that the petitioner no.1 filed a Matrimonial Suit No.459/2013 for divorce on 16.09.2013 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamshedpur and the same was admitted and notice was issued on 01.10.2013 upon the O.P.No.2. After getting notice of divorce case, O.P.No.2 filed a C.P.Case No.2969/2013 on 18.11.2013 against petitioner nos.1,2, 3 and 4 before the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad was taken cognizance of the offences u/s 498A/34 IPC and u/s 3/ 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioner nos.1, 2 and 3. She again filed another case, which was numbered as Dhanbad P.S.Case No.684 of 2014 dated 02.07.2014 registered under section 498A/336/504/506 IPC and u/s 3/ 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioner nos.1,2,3 and 4 in which learned court has taken cognizance. He further submits both the aforesaid criminal case making almost same allegations have been filed by the O.P.No.2 to harass and humiliate the petitioners particularly the petitioner nos.5,6,7 and 8 who have no concern with the family affairs of the petitioner no.1 and O.P.No.2. He submits that pursuant to interference of the Court the complaint case was compromised and the petitioners were acquitted by order dated 18.07.2018 and all those cases are still pending. He submits that it appears from the complainant case no.2969/2013 that there are three criminal cases against the petitioner no.1 and others is pending. 7. The learned counsel for the respondent State submits that this case is arising out of complaint case and the learned court after going through the materials took cognizance. 8. The Court has gone through the materials on record and finds that the petitioners have been implicated in four criminal cases for the offence under section 498A and other sections of IPC. In one of the complaint case being Complaint Case No.2969 of 2013 the petitioners have been acquitted on compromise and the rest cases are pending. 9. Looking to the complaint petition it appears that there are only omnibus allegation against the petitioners moreover the petitioner nos.2 to 8 are relatives. In one of the complaint case being Complaint Case No.2969 of 2013 the petitioners have been acquitted on compromise and the rest cases are pending. 9. Looking to the complaint petition it appears that there are only omnibus allegation against the petitioners moreover the petitioner nos.2 to 8 are relatives. Even brother in law and married sister have not been spared in the complaint case. Looking to the judgment passed by the learned court dated 16.07.2019 it transpires that the mutual divorce has been taken place between them under section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana’, (2018) 14 SCC 452 that the courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in matrimonial disputes and dowry death. Paragraph no.6 of the said judgment speaks as under: “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.” 10. Time and again the Hon’ble Supreme Court expressed concern over the misuse of section 498A of the IPC and the distant relative of the husband in matrimonial dispute without analyzing the long term ramification of the trial on the complainant and the accused. 11. In view of the above fact and considering the circumstances and in absence of any specific role attributed to the petitioners it would not be proper to post these petitioners to go through the trauma of trial and in view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, entire criminal prosecution arising out of Complaint Case No.20/2017 including the order taking cognizance dated 04.05.2017, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad is hereby quashed. 12. Cr.M.P. No. 2078 of 2017 is allowed and disposed of. 13. I.A., if any, also disposed of.