JUDGMENT : Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.-Heard Sri Vibhu Rai, learned counsel for applicant and Sri Kamlesh Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2. 2. The applicant before this Court is husband of opposite party No. 2 i.e. complainant. She has lodged an FIR against applicant (her husband) and five co-accused being his family members that they have committed offence under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S.-Kwarsi, District-Aligarh. After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed on 16.8.2018 only against three named accused i.e. applicant, his father and his mother, on which cognizance was taken on 14.1.2019 and date of summoning is not on record. Initially this Court has referred matter for mediation by an order dated 4.2.2020, however, according to mediation report dated 21.12.2021, parties were unable to arrive to any agreement. 3. Learned counsel for applicant has submitted that marriage between applicant and complainant was solemnized on 22.4.2016 and an FIR was lodged on 25.6.2018 making general and omnibus allegations, not only against applicant but also against his entire close family members that they have committed offence of subjecting her to cruelty, caused hurt, criminal intimidation and demand of dowry. During investigation, substantial part of statements of complainant and witnesses, recorded during investigation, was found to be false. 4. Learned counsel has further submitted that there was a criminal proceeding on behalf of applicant side also. The mother of applicant has lodged an FIR against present applicant and complainant i.e. his wife. Divorce proceeding was also initiated at instance of applicant which was allowed by an ex-parte order dated 3.4.2021. 5. Learned counsel referred statement of the complainant recorded during investigation and for reference the same is reproduced hereinafter : 6. Learned counsel for applicant has placed heavy reliance on a judgment passed by Supreme Court in case of Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana and another, 2024 INSC 369 and relevant paragraph thereof is mentioned hereinafter : ''31. We are of the view that the category 7 referred to above should be taken into consideration and applied in a case like the one on hand a bit liberally. We are of the view that the category 7 referred to above should be taken into consideration and applied in a case like the one on hand a bit liberally. If the Court is convinced by the fact that the involvement by the complainant of her husband and his close relatives is with an oblique motive then even if the FIR and the charge-sheet disclose the commission of a cognizable offence the Court with a view to doing substantial justice should read in between the lines the oblique motive of the complainant and take a pragmatic view of the matter. If the submission canvassed by the counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 2 and the State is to be accepted mechanically then in our opinion the very conferment of the inherent power by the Cr.P.C. upon the High Court would be rendered otiose. We are saying so for the simple reason that if the wife on account of matrimonial disputes decides to harass her husband and his family members then the first thing, she would ensure is to see that proper allegations are levelled in the First Information Report. Many times the services of professionals are availed for the same and once the complaint is drafted by a legal mind, it would be very difficult thereafter to weed out any loopholes or other deficiencies in the same. However, that does not mean that the Court should shut its eyes and raise its hands in helplessness, saying that whether true or false, there are allegations in the First Information Report and the charge-sheet papers disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. If the allegations alone as levelled, more particularly in the case like the one on hand, are to be looked into or considered then why the investigating agency thought fit to file a closure report against the other co-accused? There is no answer to this at the end of the learned counsel appearing for the State. We say so, because allegations have been levelled not only against the Appellant herein but even against his parents, brother & sister. If that be so, then why the police did not deem fit to file charge-sheet against the other co-accused? It appears that even the investigating agency was convinced that the FIR was nothing but an outburst arising from a matrimonial dispute. 32. If that be so, then why the police did not deem fit to file charge-sheet against the other co-accused? It appears that even the investigating agency was convinced that the FIR was nothing but an outburst arising from a matrimonial dispute. 32. Many times, the parents including the close relatives of the wife make a mountain out of a mole. Instead of salvaging the situation and making all possible endeavours to save the marriage, their action either due to ignorance or on account of sheer hatred towards the husband and his family members, brings about complete destruction of marriage on trivial issues. The first thing that comes in the mind of the wife, her parents and her relatives is the Police, as if the Police is the panacea of all evil. No sooner the matter reaches up to the Police, then even if there are fair chances of reconciliation between the spouses, they would get destroyed. The foundation of a sound marriage is tolerance, adjustment and respecting one another. Tolerance to each other's fault to a certain bearable extent has to be inherent in every marriage. Petty quibbles, trifling differences are mundane matters and should not be exaggerated and blown out of proportion to destroy what is said to have been made in the heaven. The Court must appreciate that all quarrels must be weighed from that point of view in determining what constitutes cruelty in each particular case, always keeping in view the physical and mental conditions of the parties, their character and social status. A very technical and hyper sensitive approach would prove to be disastrous for the very institution of the marriage. In matrimonial disputes the main sufferers are the children. The spouses fight with such venom in their heart that they do not think even for a second that if the marriage would come to an end, then what will be the effect on their children. Divorce plays a very dubious role so far as the upbringing of the children is concerned. The only reason why we are saying so is that instead of handling the whole issue delicately, the initiation of criminal proceedings would bring about nothing but hatred for each other. There may be cases of genuine ill-treatment and harassment by the husband and his family members towards the wife. The degree of such ill-treatment or harassment may vary. The only reason why we are saying so is that instead of handling the whole issue delicately, the initiation of criminal proceedings would bring about nothing but hatred for each other. There may be cases of genuine ill-treatment and harassment by the husband and his family members towards the wife. The degree of such ill-treatment or harassment may vary. However, the Police machinery should be resorted to as a measure of last resort and that too in a very genuine case of cruelty and harassment. The Police machinery cannot be utilised for the purpose of holding the husband at ransom so that he could be squeezed by the wife at the instigation of her parents or relatives or friends. In all cases, where wife complains of harassment or ill-treatment, Section 498A of the IPC cannot be applied mechanically. No FIR is complete without Sections 506(2) and 323 of the IPC. Every matrimonial conduct, which may cause annoyance to the other, may not amount to cruelty. Mere trivial irritations, quarrels between spouses, which happen in day-to-day married life, may also not amount to cruelty. 35. In one of the recent pronouncements of this Court in Mahmood Ali and others v. State of U.P and others, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 950, authored by one of us (J.B. Pardiwala, J.), the legal principle applicable apropos Section 482 of the CrPC was examined. Therein, it was observed that when an accused comes before the High Court, invoking either the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC or the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed, essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances, the High Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. It was further observed that it will not be enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not as, in frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection, to try and read between the lines.'' (Emphasis Supplied) 7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for State and learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 have submitted that allegations against present applicant are consistent in statements of witnesses, including complainant recorded during investigation and after a fair investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against applicant and other two accused and other 3 named persons were exonerated as the allegation was found true qua to them. 8. Heard counsel for parties and perused the record. 9. In order to appreciate rival submissions, I have carefully perused statement of opposite party No. 2 i.e. complainant/wife of applicant as mentioned in earlier part of present judgment. The complainant has made general and omnibus allegations against all named accused persons in regard to an alleged occurrence took place in the year 2017 and substantial part of it was found to be false during investigation. In later part of statement, details of alleged occurrence took place on 8.6.2018 was disclosed, wherein also general and omnibus allegations were made against all named accused persons including applicant except a specific allegation that he assaulted her with kick otherwise all allegations are omnibus against all named accused in FIR and as referred substantial part of it, was found false since charge-sheet has been filed only against applicant and his father and mother and other three named accused who were equally alleged to commit all referred crime were exonerated. 10. In the aforesaid circumstances, I find merit in the argument of counsel for applicant that facts of present case, are squarely covers from observations made in Achin Gupta (supra). In the present case, also sweeping allegations were made against all accused persons and during investigation allegations were found false qua to same named accused persons. 11. 10. In the aforesaid circumstances, I find merit in the argument of counsel for applicant that facts of present case, are squarely covers from observations made in Achin Gupta (supra). In the present case, also sweeping allegations were made against all accused persons and during investigation allegations were found false qua to same named accused persons. 11. In the aforesaid circumstances, the Court is of considered opinion that all allegations made against present applicant are also not made out since said allegations were similar to other named accused, who were exonerated. Investigating Officer has not distinguished their role. The applicant could not be put in a different compartment while considering statements on record so much as disbelieving qua to some of named accused persons but believing qua to applicant and other two co-accused. Accordingly, charge-sheet and cognizance order as well as further proceedings qua to applicant (details of case are mentioned in second paragraph of present judgment) are hereby quashed. It is not on record whether other two accused i.e. father and mother of present applicant have challenged the criminal proceedings or not. They are also entitled to get benefit of present order, if so advised. 12. Accordingly, application is allowed. 13. A copy of this order be sent to concerned Court. 14. Registrar (Compliance) to take steps.