JUDGMENT Umesh Chandra Sharma, J. Heard Shri Shams Tabrez Alam Ansari, learned counsel for the applicants and Shri Pankaj Kumar Tripathi, learned A.G.A for the State- opposite parties. 2. This application has been filed to quash the proceeding of Criminal Case No. 5150 of 2022 arising out of Crime No. 86 of 2021 under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C and Section ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act and Section ¾ of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2020, Police Station Dohari-Ghat, District Mau, and the charge sheet dated 11.05.2019 as well as cognizance and summoning order dated 18.04.2022 passed by Judicial Magistrate F.T.C (Crime against Women), District Mau. 3. In brief, fact of the case are that the applicants lodged the aforesaid F.I.R in P.S. Madhuban, District- Mau, in which after investigation a charge-sheet has been submitted in the aforementioned Sections against the applicants upon which on 18.04.2022 cognizance has been taken and applicants are summoned as accused. 4. In the application and the affidavit the applicant has averred that the marriage of the applicant no. 1 and the opposite party no. 2 was solemnized on 03.03.2019 as per Muslim Rites & Rituals. The I.O had given notice under Section 41-A of the Cr.P.C to the applicants, they appeared and their statements were recorded by the I.O but he did not arrest them as they fully cooperated with the investigation. 5. From perusal of the F.I.R and the statements of the witnesses, no prima-facie offences under the aforesaid Sections are made out. There is no evidence to prosecute them. The marriage between the applicant nos. 5 and 6 (both are the wife and husband) was performed 18 years before the alleged incident; they are living in Village : Banzari, P.S. Ghosi, District Mau. There is 40 k.m. distance between both the village. The applicant no. 4 is also a married woman and lives in her matrimonial house with her husband, whereas applicant nos. 2 and 3 unmarried brother and sister are living with applicant no. 1, hence they had been falsely implicated in the present case. 6. The I.O. recorded the statement of Head Muharrir and added Section ¾ of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights of Marriage) Act, 2020. There is no medical report in support of the prosecution version no date, time and place of the alleged incident has been given by the Opposite party no. 6. The I.O. recorded the statement of Head Muharrir and added Section ¾ of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights of Marriage) Act, 2020. There is no medical report in support of the prosecution version no date, time and place of the alleged incident has been given by the Opposite party no. 2 and the witnesses, no specific role has been assigned except general role against all the applicants. There is no allegation of additional demand of dowry, learned Magistrate neither perused the charge-sheet nor applied his judicial mind and has taken cognizance under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 & 506, I.P.C and Section 4 of D.P. Act; while the charge-sheet was submitted under aforesaid Sections and also under Section ¾ D.P. Act and ¾ Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2020. The learned Magistrate has not assigned the reason regarding not taking the cognizance under the impugned all Sections. 7. Prior to the F.I.R, the opposite party had also filed a petition under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which was rejected by the concerned Court, thereafter, she filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C, which has also been rejected thereafter she filed second application under Section 125 Cr.P.C, which is still pending. 8. The applicants are wholly innocent and they have falsely been implicated in the present case. Opposite party no. 2 wanted to live separately, therefore the disputes arose with her husband, who refused her request thereafter she went to her parental house and never came back. 9. Learned counsel has annexed all the referred documents as annexures to the application; notice was personally served upon opposite party no. 2, but she did not turn up. However, the State has filed counter affidavit no. 1/22, in which State has denied all the allegations leveled in the application. 10. The applicants have filed rejoinder affidavit against the counter affidavit on 09.12.2022 and has reiterated and reaffirmed all the facts already narrated in the petition, denying the facts averred in the counter affidavit, but could not deny the allegation regarding triple Talak. 11. Heard and perused the record. 12. As per F.I.R, when the opposite party no. 2 refused to lift the case, the applicant no. 11. Heard and perused the record. 12. As per F.I.R, when the opposite party no. 2 refused to lift the case, the applicant no. 1 - Riyazuddin given her triple Talak on telephone at about 3:50 p.m on 04th January, 2021, thereafter she visited the house of Riyazuddin then he abused her and said that without Halala she cannot live/reside in the house. All the accused persons threatened to kill her if she comes again. Any untoward incident may occur at any time. This fact has also been affirmed by the informant in her statement. The informant's father Badruddin and mother Jolekha have also given similar statements in support of this allegations (regarding allegation of triple Talaak); the Head Constable Nasim Farukhi has stated that by mistake Section ¾ the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage), Act, 2020 had been left, thereafter according to his statement Section ¾ Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2020 was also added; this fact has also been mentioned in the application moved under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 13. Learned counsel for the applicants has relied on the judgment Kahkashan Kaussar @ Sonam and Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors. 2022 Supreme (SC) 117, in which, niece, mother-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law were made accused and general allegations were levelled against them. 14. Earlier, the informant had also lodged F.I.R on 11.12.2017; the present F.I.R was lodged on 01.04.2019; seven accused persons including the husband were implicated, however, only five accused persons had challenged the F.I.R; the Apex Court has also relied on the citation Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P. & Ors. (2014) 2 SCC 1 and Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar & Another v. Union of India, Ministry of Law & Justice and Ors. (2018) 10 SCC 443 . 15. The Apex Court held that now-a-days, a tendency is increased to apply provisions such as Section 498-A I.P.C as instrument to settle personal spores against the husband and his relatives. The Apex Court cited the previous judgment of Rajesh Sharma and others v. State of U.P. & Anr. (2018) 10 SCC 472 ; Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar & Anr. (2014) 8 SCC 273 , Preeti Gupta & Anr. v. State of Jharkhand & Anr., (2010) 7 SCC 667 , Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. v. State of U.P & Anr. (2018) 10 SCC 472 ; Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar & Anr. (2014) 8 SCC 273 , Preeti Gupta & Anr. v. State of Jharkhand & Anr., (2010) 7 SCC 667 , Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. v. State of U.P & Anr. (2012) 10 SCC 741 and K. Subba Rao v. State of Telengana, (2018) 14 SCC 452 and observed that false implication by way of General and Ominibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of process of law. Therefore, this Court by way of this judgment has warned the courts from proceedings against the relatives and in-laws of the husband if no prima-facie case is made out against them. 16. The Apex Court found that no specific and distinct allegations have been made against either of appellants herein. They have not been attributed any specific role in the cited case; the order of High Court Patna and the F.I.R was set aside. 17. Learned counsel for the applicants has relied on the Precedence State of Gujrat v. Girish Radhakrishnan Varde 2014 (1) J.I.C 595 (Supreme Court). In paragraph 13 of the judgment, it is held that the Magistrate cannot hold inquiry if any F.I.R is registered by the Police and charge-sheet has been submitted. The Magistrate cannot exclude or include any Section or any charge after submission of the charge-sheet. 18. In this case, the F.I.R had been lodged in the aforementioned Sections and the Charge-sheet has also been submitted under the same Sections, but while taking cognizance without assigning any reason only noting that there is sufficient ground for taking cognizance, the accused persons have been summoned under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C and Section 4 of the D.P. Act, why the cognizance was not taken under Section 3 D.P. Act, and under Section 3/4 the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage), Act, 2020, no reason has been assigned. Even in the first para of the order, it is not written that the charge-sheet has been submitted under Section 3/4 D.P. Act and Section ¾ of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage), Act, 2020. Even in the first para of the order, it is not written that the charge-sheet has been submitted under Section 3/4 D.P. Act and Section ¾ of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage), Act, 2020. It clearly shows and establishes that at the time of taking cognizance only file was provided to the concerned Stenographer that let the order be transcribed and thereafter without applying judicial mind, it was signed by the Judicial Magistrate F.T.C (Offence against Women), District Mau. It is matter of concern that when the officer is specially deputed for trial for offence against women, he did not pay attention as to why he was not taking cognizance under Section 3 D.P. Act and Section ¾ of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage), Act, 2020; so far as the applicability of the principles laid down in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam (supra) concerned, the learned Magistrate has not even thought to follow the relevant judicial precedents while passing the order. 19. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the view that to prevent the abuse of process of the Court and to secure the ends of justice there is no any alternative remedy except to exercise the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 20. On the basis of the above discussions, the impugned order regarding cognizance is liable to be set aside. ORDER 21. In view of above, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C is allowed. 22. The impinged order dated 18.04.2022, regarding taking cognizance by Judicial Magistrate F.T.C (Crime against Women), District Mau. is hereby set aside. 23. The learned Judicial Magistrate F.T.C (Offence against Women), District Mau, is directed to go through the Case Diary and the Charge-sheet and thereafter pass afresh order in light of the observations made above. 24. The District Judge Mau, is directed to guide the concerned Judicial Officer.