ORDER : Heard. 1) The petitioners have challenged the FIR, charge-sheet and order framing charge in Criminal Case No.13332/2022 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg (C.G.) for commission of offence punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the IPC. 2) The facts of the present case are that the marriage between Shailendra Sahu and respondent No.2 was solemnized on 07.12.2020 at Shubhra Marriage Palace, Durg (C.G.) as per hindu rites and rituals and there is one issue from their wedlock. 3) The petitioners are father-in-law and mother-in-law of respondent No.2/complainant. Earlier an FIR was registered against Shailendra Sahu/ husband for commission of offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376 & Section 4 of POCSO Act and later on, he was acquitted of all the charges vide judgment dated 04.08.2021 passed in Special Criminal Case No.118 of 2019. The respondent No.2 lodged a report to the effect that the petitioners along with her husband subjected her to cruelty and also demanded dowry. In FIR it is stated that the petitioners abused her and passed on taunts stating that their son was sent to jail and respondent No.2 belongs to a lower caste. It is further stated in the FIR that husband compelled her for unnatural sex, he demanded two wheeler vehicle and he usually checks her mobile phone. On such complaint, the Police registered Crime No.50 of 2022 against the petitioners and Shailendra Sahu for commission of offence punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the IPC. 4) Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that there are vague and omnibus allegations against the present petitioners, who are father-in-law and mother-in-law of respondent No.2. He would submit that the main allegations are against husband and this petition has not been preferred on his behalf. It is also stated that the witnesses namely-Pramila Meshram, Gunjeshwari Sharma and Satish Singh have categorically made allegations against Shailendra Sahu/ husband only and there are general allegations against the present petitioners. He placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam and others Vs. State of Bihar and others, reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599 . 5) On the other hand, learned counsel for the State as well as respondent No.2 would oppose. He placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam and others Vs. State of Bihar and others, reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599 . 5) On the other hand, learned counsel for the State as well as respondent No.2 would oppose. They would submit that there are serious allegations against the present petitioners, who are father-inlaw and mother-in-law of respondent No.2. They would further submit that respondent No.2 was subjected to cruelty by the present petitioners too, therefore, the present petition preferred by the petitioners deserves to be dismissed. 6) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the charge-sheet. 7) Coming to the facts of the present case, upon a perusal of the contents of the FIR, it is revealed that general allegations are levelled against the petitioners. The complainant alleged that her father-in-law and mother-in-law harassed her and demanded dowry and she was abused by them too. Furthermore, no specific and distinct allegations have been made against them, none of the petitioners have been attributed any specific role in furtherance of the general allegations made against them. The allegations are general and omnibus and can at best be said to have been made out on account of small skirmishes. Insofar as husband is concerned, the present petition has not been filed on his behalf and there are serious allegation against him. 8) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kahkashan Kausar (supra) while dealing with similar issue in paras 10 to 18 held as under: 10. Having perused the relevant facts and contentions made by the appellants and respondents, in our considered opinion, the foremost issue which requires determination in the instant case is whether allegations made against the appellant in-laws are in the nature of general omnibus allegations and therefore liable to be quashed? 11. Before we delve into greater detail on the nature and content of allegations made, it becomes pertinent to mention that incorporation of Section 498-A of IPC was aimed at preventing cruelty committed upon a woman by her husband and her in-laws, by facilitating rapid state intervention. However, it is equally true, that in recent times, matrimonial litigation in the country has also increased significantly and there is a greater disaffection and friction surrounding the institution of marriage, now, more than ever. However, it is equally true, that in recent times, matrimonial litigation in the country has also increased significantly and there is a greater disaffection and friction surrounding the institution of marriage, now, more than ever. This has resulted in an increased tendency to employ provisions such as 498-A IPC as instruments to settle personal scores against the husband and his relatives. 12. This Court in its judgment in Rajesh Sharma v State of U.P. [ (2018) 10 SCC 472 ] has observed: (SCC pp. 478- 79, para 14) “14. Section 498-A was inserted in the statute with the laudable object of punishing cruelty at the hands of husband or his relatives against a wife particularly when such cruelty had potential to result in suicide or murder of a woman as mentioned in the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act 46 of 1983. The expression “cruelty” in Section 498- A covers conduct which may drive the woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury (mental or physical) or danger to life or harassment with a view to coerce her to meet unlawful demand. It is a matter of serious concern that large number of cases continue to be filed under Section 498-A alleging harassment of married women. We have already referred to some of the statistics from the Crime Records Bureau. This Court had earlier noticed the fact that most of such complaints are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues. Many of such complaints are not bona fide. At the time of filing of the complaint, implications and consequences are not visualized. At times such complaints lead to uncalled for harassment not only to the accused but also to the complainant. Uncalled for arrest may ruin the chances of settlement.” 13. Previously, in the landmark judgment of this court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar [ (2014) 8 SCC 273 ], it was also observed: (SCC p. 276, para 4) “4. There is a phenomenal increase in matrimonial disputes in recent years. The institution of marriage is greatly revered in this country. Section 498-A IPC was introduced with avowed object to combat the menace of harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband and his relatives. There is a phenomenal increase in matrimonial disputes in recent years. The institution of marriage is greatly revered in this country. Section 498-A IPC was introduced with avowed object to combat the menace of harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband and his relatives. The fact that Section 498-A IPC is a cognizable and non-bailable offence has lent it a dubious place of pride amongst the provisions that are used as weapons rather than shield by disgruntled wives. The simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his relatives arrested under this provision. In a quite a number of cases, bedridden grandfathers and grandmothers of the husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested.” 14. Further in Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand [ (2010) 7 SCC 667 ], it has also been observed: (SCC pp. 676-77, paras 32-36) “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 are also a matter of serious concern. 33. The learned members of the Bar have enormous social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fiber 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 fiber, peace and tranquility of the society remains intact. The members of the Bar should also ensure that one complaint should not lead to multiple cases. 34. They must discharge their duties to the best of their abilities to ensure that social fiber, peace and tranquility of the society remains intact. The members of the Bar should also ensure that one complaint should not lead to multiple cases. 34. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualized 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 husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of 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 complaint are required to be scrutinized 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 amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful.” 15. In Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P. [ (2012) 10 SCC 741 ], it was observed: (SCC p. 749, para 21) “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 [ (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: “12.....There has been an outburst of matrimonial dispute 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 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.” 16. Recently, in K. Subba Rao v. The State of Telangana [ (2018) 14 SCC 452 ], it was also observed that: (SCC p. 454, para 6) “6……….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.” 17. The abovementioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this Court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of Section 498-A IPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said judgments that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this Court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and inlaws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them. 18. Therefore, this Court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and inlaws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them. 18. Coming to the facts of this case, upon a perusal of the contents of the FIR dated 1-4-2019, it is revealed that general allegations are levelled against the appellants. The complainant alleged that “all accused harassed her mentally and threatened her of terminating her pregnancy”. Furthermore, no specific and distinct allegations have been made against either of the appellants herein, i.e., none of the appellants have been attributed any specific role in furtherance of the general allegations made against them. This simply leads to a situation wherein one fails to ascertain the role played by each accused in furtherance of the offence. The allegations are, therefore, general and omnibus and can at best be said to have been made out on account of small skirmishes. Insofar as husband is concerned, since he has not appealed against the order of the High Court, we have not examined the veracity of allegations made against him. However, as far as the appellants are concerned, the allegations made against them being general and omnibus, do not warrant prosecution.” 9) Now coming to the facts of the present case in light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is crystal clear that general and omnibus allegations have been leveled against the petitioners and in the absence of any specific role attributed to the petitioners, it would be unjust if the petitioners are forced to go through the tribulations of a trial. 10) Therefore, in view of the above facts and discussions, FIR, charge-sheet and order framing charge in Criminal Case No.13332 of 2022 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg (C.G.) are hereby quashed pertaining to the petitioners only. 11) As a result, the petition stands allowed.