JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Krishna Murari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in both cases, Mr. Vishwanath Roy, learned Spl.P.P. for the State in Cr.M.P. No. 3308 of 2013, Mrs. Shweta Singh, learned A.P.P. for the State in Cr.M.P. No. 2540 of 2012 and Mr. A.K. Choudhary, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 in Cr.M.P. No. 3308 of 2013 and Mr. Brij Bihari Sinha, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 in Cr.M.P. No. 2540 of 2012. 2. In both the cases, common facts, FIR and the order taking cognizance are under challenge, that’s why both the petitions have been heard together with the consent of the parties. 3. In Cr.M.P. No. 3308 of 2013 prayer has been made for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 28.06.2013, by which, cognizance for the offence under Sections 498-A/34 of the IPC has been taken against the petitioners, in connection with Sector-IV (Sector-VI) P.S. Case No. 141 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. No. 1542 of 2012 [arising out of C.P. Case No. 822 of 2012], pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro. 4. In Cr.M.P. No. 2540 of 2012, prayer has been made for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding and the FIR, being (Sector-VI) P.S. Case No. 141 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. No. 1542 of 2012 [arising out of C.P. Case No. 822 of 2012], registered for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 498-A/504 of IPC, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro. 5. In Cr.M.P. No. 2540 of 2012, petitioner No. 1 is brother-inlaw (elder), petitioner No. 2 is sister-in-law (elder) and petitioner No. 3 is also elder brother-in-law of the O.P. No. 2 and in Cr.M.P. No. 3308 of 2013, the petitioner is husband of O.P. No. 2. 6. The complaint case was filed alleging therein that she was married to accused Ashok Kumar on 28.05.2004 by an expense of more than Rs. Ten lacs. She claims to have some documentary proofs in this regard. She has further alleged that she was taunted by her in-laws, due to her dark complexion and comparatively inferior looks. She was made to do domestic works, due to her looks. Even her husband did not supported her. Ten lacs. She claims to have some documentary proofs in this regard. She has further alleged that she was taunted by her in-laws, due to her dark complexion and comparatively inferior looks. She was made to do domestic works, due to her looks. Even her husband did not supported her. She has further alleged that her husband was very obedient and attached to his elder brothers and his brother in laws/accused nos. 5 and 7 in the complaint case) and his bhabhi. She has further alleged that she remained in her sasural for about one and half months. She has further alleged that petitioners along with other accused herein told other family members that the father of the complainant has promised to provide a car of about Rs. Four lacs, after few months. She has further alleged that in December, 2005 she was assaulted by her husband at the instigation of all the accused persons. The complainant further alleged that she gave birth to a female child at Bokaro and just after delivery all the accused persons started to allege that the child was not of her husband. A Panchayat was held to settle the issue but due to the attitude of the accused persons it failed to settle the dispute. She has further alleged that all the accused persons, barring her husband and accused No. 7 assaulted her on 21.08.2012 for kidnapping her minor child. 7. Mr. Krishna Murari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the Ashok Kumar is the husband of O.P. No. 2. He submits that so far as other accused persons are concerned, they are brother-in-laws and sister-in-law and they have unnecessarily been made accused in a case, registered under Section 498-A of the IPC. He further submits that the marriage of petitioner Ashok Kumar and O.P. No.2 was solemnized in the year 2004 and for restoration of conjugal life, a petition was filed before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Nawada (Bihar) on 26.04.2011, wherein the O.P. No. 2 has appeared and filed her written statement on 21.11.2011. He further submits that a petition was filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for interim maintenance by the O.P. No. 2, which was rejected by the learned court on 02.07.2012 in view of the fact that in spite of several notices, she has not appeared before the learned court. He further submits that a petition was filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for interim maintenance by the O.P. No. 2, which was rejected by the learned court on 02.07.2012 in view of the fact that in spite of several notices, she has not appeared before the learned court. He further submits that in the present proceeding before the High Court, in spite of several notices, she has not appeared and considering that she is a practicing advocate of Bokaro Civil Court, this court has directed to serve the notice upon the O.P. No.2 through the Chairman, Jharkhand State Bar Council and that is how notice has been served and thereafter the O.P. No. 2 has appeared after 10 years of proceeding. He further submits that the entire allegations so far as in-laws are concerned, which are only general and omnibus. What are the role played by the in-laws are not disclosed in the complaint petition. He further submits that the police has submitted the chargesheet and thereafter the learned court has taken the cognizance. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits the O.P. No. 2 has filed a complaint, which was sent under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation, which is in violation of the principles framed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Priyanka Srivastava & Anr. Versus State of U.P. & Ors., reported in (2015) 6 SCC 287 . 8. On the abovementioned grounds, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that entire criminal proceedings are malicious and the same may kindly be quashed. 9. On the other hand, Mr. A.K. Choudhary, and Mr. Brij Bihari Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2 in respective cases jointly submit that the case is made out and that’s why the learned court has rightly taken the cognizance under Section 498-A of the IPC. They further submit that chargesheet has been submitted and the accused persons have also filed the discharge petition, which was rejected and the same was challenged in the revision petition before the revisional court, which was also dismissed and the case is at the evidence stage. On these grounds, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2 submit that the case is made out and this court may not interfere in the matter. 10. Mr. Vishwanath Roy and Mrs. On these grounds, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2 submit that the case is made out and this court may not interfere in the matter. 10. Mr. Vishwanath Roy and Mrs. Shweta Singh, learned counsel appearing for the State in respective cases jointly submit that charge has already been framed and the order taking cognizance is correct and at this stage, this court may not interfere in the matter under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 11. In view of the above submissions of the parties, the court has gone through the contents of the complaint petition as well as order taking cognizance and the other Annexures. It is an admitted fact that Ashok Kumar is the husband of the O.P. No. 2 and the rest of the petitioners are brother-in-laws and sister-in-law of the O.P. No. 2. Further from the record, it appears that the petitioner Ashok Kumar has filed a suit for restoration of conjugal life before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Nawada (Bihar) on 26.04.2011, wherein the O.P. No. 2 has appeared and filed her written statement on 21.11.2011 and in her written statement, O.P. No. 2 has admitted that she is residing at Bokaro since 2008, wherein the complaint case was filed on 24.08.2012, alleging therein that tortures are being done by these petitioners, who are accused in the complaint petition. 12. Looking into the contents of the complaint petition, it transpires that so far as brother-in-laws and sister-in-laws are concerned, there are general and omnibus allegations against them and what are the specific role played by these petitioners have not been disclosed in the complaint petition. 13. In the above background, Section 498-A is required to be considered by this court. Incorporation of section 498A of IPC was aimed at preventing cruelty committed upon a woman by her husband and her inlaws, 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. This has resulted in an increased tendency to employ provisions such as 498A IPC as instruments to settle personal scores against the husband and his relatives and in such cases, distant relatives of the husband are not left. 14. This has resulted in an increased tendency to employ provisions such as 498A IPC as instruments to settle personal scores against the husband and his relatives and in such cases, distant relatives of the husband are not left. 14. It is further well settled that 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 and this aspect of the matter has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Sharma and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr; reported in (2018) 10 SCC 472 , where in Para-14 following observation has been made, which is as follows:- “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 498A 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 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.” 15. Further phenomenal increase in matrimonial disputes in recent years was the subject matter before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Anr; reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para-4 thereof, held as follows:- “4. There is a phenomenal increase in matrimonial disputes in recent years. Further phenomenal increase in matrimonial disputes in recent years was the subject matter before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Anr; reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para-4 thereof, held as follows:- “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. 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 number of cases, bed- ridden grandfathers and grand-mothers of the husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested.” 16. The cases under section 498A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations was the subject matter in the case of Preeti Gupta & Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr; reported in (2010) 7 SCC 667 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paras-32 to 36 held as follows:- “32. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under section 498A 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. 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 498A 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. 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.” 17. 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.” 17. How all the family members are roped in the matrimonial litigation including the distant relatives was the subject matter in the case of G.V. Rao vs. L.H.V. Prasad & Ors. reported in (2000) 3 SCC 693 , which was again considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. Vs. State of UP & Anr; reported in (2012) 10 SCC 741 . 18. The Courts are required to be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and the relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of general and omnibus allegations, unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are not made out. The entire family members may not be allowed to face the trauma of trial. 19. In the above background, the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well High Court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of section 498A IPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analyzing the long term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused and false implication of in-laws are required to be checked into so that misuse of the process of law may not occurred in such matrimonial disputes and that’s why by the several judgments, the courts were warned from the proceedings against the distant relatives and in-laws, when no prima facie case is made out against them. 20. Coming to the facts of the present case and on perusal of the contents of the complaint petition so far in-laws are concerned, the court finds that there are general and omnibus allegations against the in-laws, who are petitioners in Cr.M.P. No. 2540 of 2012. Furthermore no specific and distinct allegations have been made against the in-laws, who are petitioners in Cr.M.P. No. 2540 of 2012 and none of the in-laws have attributed any specific role in furtherance of general and omnibus allegation made against them. 21. Furthermore no specific and distinct allegations have been made against the in-laws, who are petitioners in Cr.M.P. No. 2540 of 2012 and none of the in-laws have attributed any specific role in furtherance of general and omnibus allegation made against them. 21. Looking into the averments made in the written statement filed by the O.P. No. 2 in the petition, filed for restoration of conjugal life, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act by the husband namely Ashok Kumar, it is crystal clear that she is residing at Bokaro with effect from 2008, wherein the complaint case was filed on 24.08.2012, which fortifies the case of the in-laws and clearly suggests that the these in-laws have been falsely implicated in this case. However, court finds that there is allegation against the husband, who is petitioner in Cr.M.P. No. 3308 of 2013. How the case has been delayed and after involving the Jharkhand State Bar Council, the notice has been served upon the O.P. No. 2 and thereafter she has appeared in the case has been discussed hereinabove. Therefore, upon consideration of the relevant circumstances and in absence of any specific role attributed to the accused persons, who are inlaws the O.P. No. 2 and petitioners in Cr.M.P. No. 2540 of 2012, it would be unjust, if they are forced to go through the tribulations of a trial only on the basis of general and omnibus allegations. 22. It is well known that even in some of the cases and after conclusion of trial the convictions are not there to the in-laws. Further it is well settled and if the case is pending before the High Court and the High Court once comes to the conclusion that the case is malicious in nature, and to allow the proceeding to continue will amount to an abuse of process of law, the High Court is competent to exercise power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and also under Article-226 of the Constitution of India, at any stage. A reference may be made to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anand Kumar Mohatta v. State (NCT of Delhi); reported in (2019) 11 SCC 706 . Paragraph 16 of the said judgment is quoted herein below:- “16. A reference may be made to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anand Kumar Mohatta v. State (NCT of Delhi); reported in (2019) 11 SCC 706 . Paragraph 16 of the said judgment is quoted herein below:- “16. There is nothing in the words of this section which restricts the exercise of the power of the Court to prevent the abuse of process of court or miscarriage of justice only to the stage of the FIR. It is settled principle of law that the High Court can exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC even when the discharge application is pending with the trial court [G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P., (2000) 2 SCC 636 , para 7 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 513. Umesh Kumar v. State of A.P., (2013) 10 SCC 591 , para 20 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 338 : (2014) 2 SCC (L&S) 237]. Indeed, it would be a travesty to hold that proceedings initiated against a person can be interfered with at the stage of FIR but not if it has advanced and the allegations have materialised into a charge-sheet. On the contrary it could be said that the abuse of process caused by FIR stands aggravated if the FIR has taken the form of a charge-sheet after investigation. The power is undoubtedly conferred to prevent abuse of process of power of any court.” 23. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, the entire criminal proceeding and the FIR, being (Sector-VI) P.S. Case No. 141 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. No. 1542 of 2012 [arising out of C.P. Case No. 822 of 2012], registered for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 498- A/504 of IPC, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro, so far as petitioners in Cr.M.P. No. 2540 of 2012 are concerned, are hereby, quashed. 24. Cr.M.P. No. 2540 of 2012 is allowed and disposed of. 25. The prayer made in Cr.M.P. No. 3308 of 2013 is, hereby, rejected, considering that the petitioner Ashok Kumar is the husband and there are allegations against him in the complaint. Thus, the case against the petitioner Ashok Kumar [in Cr.M.P. No. 3308 of 2013] has been kept intact and learned court will proceed against him in accordance with law.