ORDER : (A. Badharudeen, J.) This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking the following prayer; “to quash all further proceedings emanating from Crime No.1444/2022 of Thiruvalla Police Station and pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thiruvalla as C.C.No.2222 of 2022 (Anneuxre-A11) as any further prosecution of the petitioner would only be an abuse of the process of the Court and against the interest of justice.” Petitioner is the 6th accused in this case. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent. Also heard the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the averments in the petition and the relevant documents including the objection filed by the 3rd respondent and the documents produced thereof. 3. In this matter, the case of the prosecution is that accused Nos. 1 to 6 committed offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 324, 143 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'the IPC'). The sum and substance of the allegation is that the 1st accused in this crime married the 3rd respondent on 01.11.2021 at St.Thomas Orthodox Church, Kallissery. The further allegation is that while she was staying at the matrimonial home after the marriage, and also when she stayed at the residence of the 6th accused on the date of marriage, and thereafter from 8th March, 2022 at the residence of the 6th accused, accused Nos. 1 to 6 jointly threatened the 3rd respondent/de facto complainant mentally and physically who suffers from amnesia. The further allegation is that they made her read sentences in the newspapers to keep the same by heart and recite them to test her. They also induced the de facto complainant to give complaint against her parents before the Tiruvalla Police. The further allegation is that the accused obtained blank signed papers from her during this period. There is specific allegation that, on 30.06.2022, when the de facto complainant reached the matrimonial home on leave from her employment, the accused manhandled and commanded the de facto complainant to go out from the house and accordingly she was taken to the house of the 6th accused on 02.07.2022. While she was at the house of the 6th accused, the 6th accused called her as a 'prostitute' and physically assaulted her. Later she was abandoned to her family house. 4. While she was at the house of the 6th accused, the 6th accused called her as a 'prostitute' and physically assaulted her. Later she was abandoned to her family house. 4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has no role in this crime and the petitioner being the maternal uncle of the 1st accused provided his residence for the purpose of preparation of marriage, which was solemnised at St.Thomas Orthodox Church, Kallissery and thereafter the de facto complainant and the 1st accused started to reside at the matrimonial home. After the marriage the 6th accused has no connection with them. He was roped into this crime without any substance. 5. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner further that the complaint which led to registration of this crime was originally lodged only on 29.07.2022 as evident from the endorsement made by the Magistrate, and prior to that the 1st accused lodged Annexure-A 7 divorce OP on 05.07.2022. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that initially, as on 01.07.2022, the 1st accused lodged a complaint before the Thiruvalla Police Station against 3rd respondent and her parents and acting on the complaint, the de facto complainant was brought to the police station and after negotiation they were sent back as per Annexre-A6, finding existence of family dispute and relegating them to move before the Family Court. It is also pointed out that the de facto complainant executed Anneuxre-A5 declaration as on 02.07.2022 stating that her husband and his relatives did not physically or mentally assault her. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioner pressed for the quashment of the proceedings on the submission that prima facie offences alleged against the 6th accused are not made out. In this connection he has placed decision of the Apex Court reported in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and Others v. State of Bihar and Others [2022 KHC 6153] with reference to paragraph Nos.16, 17 and 18. Paragraph No.18 of the said decision reads as under: “18. The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of S. 498A 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. The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of S. 498A 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 in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them.” 6. Another decision of the Apex Court reported in Subba Rao K. and Others v. State of Telangana represented by its Secretary, Department of Home and Others [2018 KHC 6225] also has been pressed into to ascertain the same point. 7. Dispelling the argument at the instance of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent/de facto complainant that the sum and substance of the contention raised by the petitioner herein, who is the 6th accused, as could be read out from paragraph No.3 of the Crl.M.C. is that his role in the marriage between the 1st accused and de facto complainant is confined to that of providing his residential house for the purpose of making arrangement for the wedding which was held at the St.Thomas Orthodox Church, Kallissery. But the said contention prima facie is not believable. In this connection, the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent/de facto complainant pointed out the averments in paragraph 3 of the complaint which would reiterate that the de facto complainant resided at the residence of the 6th accused after the marriage, and thereafter also. He also pointed out the statement given by CW4 Sasikala, who is the neighbour of the 6th accused to the effect that the marriage fixation ceremony of the de facto complainant with the 1st accused was solemnized at the house of the 6th accused and she participated along with family but she didn't attend the wedding. He also pointed out the statement given by CW4 Sasikala, who is the neighbour of the 6th accused to the effect that the marriage fixation ceremony of the de facto complainant with the 1st accused was solemnized at the house of the 6th accused and she participated along with family but she didn't attend the wedding. According to CW4, after the wedding, the 1st accused along with the 3rd respondent/de facto complainant resided at the house of the 6th accused for 2-3 days, and thereafter for 4-5 days, 23 months before giving statement in this case. CW4 had given statement further that the 1st accused and the de facto complainant stayed at the house of the 6th accused and there were noisy exchanges of words during the stay. The learned counsel also took the attention of this Court to the statement of CW5 another neighbour Rema, who gave statement before the police in similar terms as that of CW4. According to the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent/de facto complainant, filing of the divorce OP by the 1st accused was known to the de facto complainant since she received notice thereof only during the month of September, 2022 as evident from Anneuxre-R3(g) filed along with the objection. Therefore, the allegation that complaint was filed only after knowing pendency of OP for divorce is false. 8. The learned Public Prosecutor shared the argument of the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent/de facto complainant and read out the averments of the complaint which would constitute prima facie materials to show commission of offences by the 6th accused also. 9. Admittedly the marriage between the 1st accused and the de facto complainant was solemnized on 01.11.2021 at St.Thomas Orthodox Church, Kallissery as per Christian religious rites. Entrustment of Rs.10,00,000/-and 32 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of marriage is the allegation of the de facto complainant. According to the de facto complainant, after a short stay in Kerala, after the marriage, she resided along with the 1st accused in Bangalore. During the stay with the 1st accused, in Bangalore, he made complaint regarding insufficiency of money and gold ornaments given, and thereby she was abused. According to the de facto complainant, after a short stay in Kerala, after the marriage, she resided along with the 1st accused in Bangalore. During the stay with the 1st accused, in Bangalore, he made complaint regarding insufficiency of money and gold ornaments given, and thereby she was abused. According to the de facto complainant, it was stated by the 3rd accused that, if her son would have married another lady, he would have obtained Rs.25,00,000/-as dowry and on 03.03.2022 accused Nos.1,3, 4 and 5 jointly physically manhandled the de facto complainant. Further accused Nos. 1 and 5 jointly took away the mobile phone of the de facto complainant and thereby she was restrained from contacting her parents or brother in any manner. 10. The crucial question to be addressed in this matter is as to whether the prosecution records would justify the commission of offences under Section 498-A read with Sections 323, 324, 143 and 149 of IPC by the petitioner herein, who is the 6th accused and the maternal uncle of the 1st accused?. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner/ 6th accused is that the one and only instance which would show the involvement of the petitioner in the marriage is the participation in the marriage as well as providing of his residence for the purpose of preparation of marriage which was solemnized at St.Thomas Orthodox Church, Kallissery. It is specifically pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that apart from the above, the petitioner has no role. Whereas, as could be noticed from the statement of the de facto complainant and pointed out by the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent and learned Public Prosecutor, the allegation is that as on 30.06.2022 when the de facto complainant reached the matrimonial home, on relief from her employment, the accused persons manhandled and commanded the de facto complainant to go out from the house. Thereafter she was taken to the house of the 6th accused on 02.07.2022. During the stay of the de facto complainant at the house of the 6th accused also, the accused persons physically assaulted her and the 6th accused also assaulted her and called a 'prostitute'. Thereafter she was taken to the house of the 6th accused on 02.07.2022. During the stay of the de facto complainant at the house of the 6th accused also, the accused persons physically assaulted her and the 6th accused also assaulted her and called a 'prostitute'. Apart from the statement of the de facto complainant, on reading the statements of CW4 Sasikala and CW5 Rema, it could be seen that the de facto complainant along with the 1st accused resided at the house of the 6th accused for 2-3 days after the wedding and thereafter they went to Bangalore. However, 2-3 months before giving statements by CW4 and CW5, the de facto complainant resided at the house of the 6th accused for 4 or 5 days and there were noisy exchanges of words during the stay. Thus the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner confining the role of the petitioner in attending the wedding and also providing his house for the purpose of preparation of the wedding is not correct and the available materials would show persecution and harassment at the instance of the petitioner/6th accused also. 11. It is the trite law that in the cases where the relatives of the husband are being roped into criminal cases, alleging offence under Section 498-A without support of sufficient materials prima facie to see their involvement ; such actions should be deprecated and dealt appropriately. However, while addressing the question as to whether the relative of the husband subjected the wife to physical and mental cruelty or harassment demanding the dowry or otherwise as dealt under Section 498-A explanation (a) and (b), the said allegations to be made out from the prosecution records, prima facie. If so, the relative is also liable to be prosecuted and quashment of the said proceedings could not be opted. In the instant case, prima facie the prosecution allegations are made out, against the petitioner, warranting trial and therefore, the quashment sought for is liable to fail. 12. In view of the above, quashment sought for is disallowed and the petition stands dismissed. Interim order of stay shall stand vacated. Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the jurisdictional court concerned for information and further steps.