JUDGMENT : (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.) 1. Heard Sri M.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for applicants and Ms. Shaili Ganguli, learned counsel for opposite party-2. 2. Applicants (8 in numbers) are family members whereas applicant no.1 is wife of complainant. 3. Learned counsel for applicants has extensively referred impugned order passed under Section 204 Cr.P.C. whereby all applicants are summoned for offence under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452 IPC as well as statement of complainant under Section 200 and of witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. that impugned order was passed only on basis of omnibus and general allegations only for the purpose of putting wife of complainant (applicant no.1) and her close relatives under pressure as earlier applicant no.1 has lodged an FIR for matrimonial dispute against complainant and his close relatives as well as other 3 cases also. For reference, relevant part of impugned order dated 16.01.2024, statements under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. are quoted below -: 4. Learned counsel for opposite party-2 has supported the impugned order that on basis of statements recorded during proceedings and after taking note that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against applicants, therefore, impugned order is passed whereby they were summoned. 5. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record. 6. It is clearly evident from statement of complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. that he has made sweeping general and omnibus allegations against all applicants including that they have stolen Rs. 70,000/- from his house. It is also evident from impugned order that trial Court has disbelieved allegations in regard to theft since applicants have not summoned under said offence as such substantial part of statements were found false, therefore, all witnesses have stated exaggerated version. 7. It was alleged that applicants have committed offence for causing hurt not only with complainant but her relatives also. No alleged injured was medically examined since no injury report was placed on record. 8. In regard to alleged offence of trespass, allegedly applicant no.1 has come to her matrimonial house along with her relatives and since on basis of above discussion, Court is of opinion that no offence of causing hurt is made out, therefore, offence of trespass is also not made out as it is alleged that after trespass, applicants have caused hurt to number of persons of complainant side. 9. 9. So far as ingredients of Section 504 and 506 IPC are concerned, Court takes note of Mohammad Wajid and Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh And Others, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 951 and since their basic ingredients that there must be an ‘alarm’ as well as that nature of insult must be of such extent that complainant and his associates would be provoked to breach peace are missing as well as nature of insult or abusive language was also not disclosed by any witnesses, therefore, neither of said offences are made out. Admittedly, complainant’s wife has filed various cases against complainant and his family members, therefore, it would be a reason for false implication of applicants being counterblast. 10. In aforesaid circumstances, since impugned order was passed only on basis of sweeping general and omnibus allegations against applicants who are 8 in numbers, therefore, in view of judgment of Supreme Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and others vs. State of Bihar and others, (2022) 6 SCC 599 that in the absence of any specific role attributed to the accused, it would be unjust if they are forced to go through the tribulation of a trial i.e. general and omnibus allegations cannot manifest in a situation where relatives of complainant’s wife are forced to undergo trial as well as in view of Achin Gupta vs. State of Haryana and another, 2024 0 INSC 369 , I am of considered opinion that it is a fit case where inherent powers of this Court could be invoked. 11. Accordingly, impugned order dated 16.01.2024 passed by learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Court-1, Kanpur Nagar in Case No. 911 of 2021 (Pankaj Kumar vs. Smt. Reha Sharma and others) under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452 IPC, Police Station- Bithur, District- Kanpur Nagar, pending before ACMM, Court-1, Kanpur Nagar and consequential proceedings thereof are hereby set aside. 12. In view of above, application is allowed. 13. Registrar (Compliance) to take steps.