JUDGMENT : Notice upon opposite party no.2 has been effected. On 08.05.2024, nobody appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2 and with a view to provide one more opportunity to opposite party no.2, the matter was adjourned and it was also observed that if opposite party no.2 will not appear on the next date, the matter shall be decided on merits in absence of opposite party no.2. Today on repeated calls, nobody appears on behalf of opposite party no.2 and in view of that, this matter is being heard on merit in absence of opposite party no.2. 2. Heard Mr. Lukesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Sardhu Mahto, learned counsel for the State. 3. The prayer in the petition is made for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 14.07.2009 passed in C.P. Case No.377 of 2009, pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad. 4. The complaint case was filed alleging therein that the complainant is legally married wife of Roopesh Kumar Singh and the marriage was solemnized according to Hindu rights and rituals on 17.02.2005. At the time of marriage, the complainant's father has given dowry of Rupees Nine Lakhs along with ornaments and utensils. After the marriage, the complainant was brought to her in-laws house at C.D. Singh Colony, Dhanbad, where her father-in-law was posted as B.C.C.L Officer and at that time, the parties started their conjugal life. After passing of few months of the marriage, the family members of the petitioners started making pressure upon the complainant to bring more dowry of Rupees Two Lakhs from her father and when the same was objected by the complainant, she was subjected to mental and physical cruelty and she was not allowed proper food, clothing and necessary medicine. The complainant informed the matter to her father on mobile, then the family members of the complainant came to in-laws house of complainant and saw pitiable condition of the complainant. The father of the complainant requested all the accused persons not to torture her but in return the accused persons started using filthy language upon the complainant and directed that if the dowry demand will not be full-filled, they will not allow her in the house any more. A Panchayati was convened, but the accused persons did not appear before Panchayati. A Panchayati was convened, but the accused persons did not appear before Panchayati. The complainant further alleged that her husband is drunkard and all in-law persons instigating the husband to give mental and physical torture to her. It was also alleged that on 29.01.2007 while the complainant was at her matrimonial house, her mother- in-law, accused no. 3, all of a sudden begun to abuse her by pulling her hair. The complainant again informed her father and requested her to take her to her "Naihar" and accordingly she was taken back by her father to her father's house, but again after some days accused no. 1 i.e. husband came to the house of the complainant's father and requested for "Vidai" with assurance that no further torture will be made to her. After some days, on 22.02.2007 accused nos. 2, 5 and 6 again assaulted brutally and attempted to murder her. She was taken back to her father's house on 09.04.2007. The complainant's father sent a legal notice to resolve the dispute within 15 days with respect to the dispute regarding her torture by the accused persons, but in spite of receiving the legal notice, no reply was sent and the accused no. 1 again reached to her parents' house for "Vidai". On 30.10.2007, again demand of dowry was made for Rupees Five Lakhs and torture was made to her. In the meanwhile, the complainant came to know that the divorce case was filed by her husband at Chhapra, but on being asked the husband, he ignored this. On 22.11.2008 the complainant's father arranged a Panchayati of local persons, in which also the accused persons did not appear and lastly again on 15.09.2009, the husband came for "Vidai" purpose and he was directed to execute a bond in favour of the complainant which was refused by her husband. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, C.P. Case No. 377/2009 was registered for the offence alleged under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the accused persons. 5. Mr. Lukesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner no.1 is the brother-in-law of opposite party no.2 and petitioner no.2 is the sister-in-law of opposite party no.2 and petitioner no.2 is the wife of petitioner no.1. 5. Mr. Lukesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner no.1 is the brother-in-law of opposite party no.2 and petitioner no.2 is the sister-in-law of opposite party no.2 and petitioner no.2 is the wife of petitioner no.1. He submits that the entire family members have been made accused and the allegations are general and omnibus, so far as these petitioners are concerned and these petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case. He submits that Explanation (a) and (b) of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is not fulfilled in the present case and in spite of that, the learned Court has been pleased to take cognizance under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners. On these grounds, he submits that the entire criminal proceeding may kindly be quashed, so far as these petitioners are concerned. 6. Mr. Sardhu Mahto, learned counsel for the State submits that the matter is arising out of complaint case and the learned Court, looking into solemn affirmation, has been pleased to take cognizance. 7. Looking into the contents of the complaint petition, it transpires that so far as these petitioners are concerned, there are general and omnibus allegations against them. Petitioner no.1 is the brother-in-law of opposite party no.2 and petitioner no.2 is the sister-in-law of opposite party no.2 and both the petitioners are husband and wife. In the solemn affirmation also, nothing specific has been stated by the complainant-opposite party no.2, so far as these petitioners are concerned. The Court finds that the complaint petition is not on affidavit, which further strengthens the case of the petitioners in light of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Priyanka Srivastava & another v. State of U.P. & others, reported in 2015 (6) SCC 287 . 8. Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code 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. Nowadays many of such complaints are not bona fide. At the time of filing of the complaint, implications and consequences are not visualized. Nowadays 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. That was the aspect, which was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Sharma v. State of U.P., reported in (2018) 10 SCC 472 . 9. In some of the cases, even bed ridden grandfathers and grandmothers of the husband, their sisters living abroad for decades have been made accused in matrimonial dispute arising out of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and that was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273 . 10. How the cases under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code are being filed at the heat of moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations, was subject matter in the case of Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, reported in (2010) 7 SCC 667 . 11. It was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Subba Rao v. The State of Telangana, reported in (2018) 14 SCC 452 that the Courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths and 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. 12. These are some judgments on the dispute in hand, which is the subject matter of the present case and the above judgments clearly demonstrate that the Hon'ble Supreme Court at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code 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. 13. Coming to the facts of the present case, upon perusal of the contents of the complaint petition, it is revealed that omnibus and general allegations are levelled against these two petitioners. The role played by these two petitioners have not been attributed any specific role in furtherance of the general allegations made against them. 13. Coming to the facts of the present case, upon perusal of the contents of the complaint petition, it is revealed that omnibus and general allegations are levelled against these two petitioners. The role played by these two petitioners have not 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. Admittedly, these petitioners are brother-in-law and sister-in-law of opposite party no.2-complainant. 14. In view of the above facts and further on consideration of the relevant circumstances and in absence of any specific role attributed by these two petitioners, it would be unjust if these petitioners are forced to go through tribulations of a trial. In view of that, to allow to continue the proceeding, so far as these petitioners are concerned, that will amount to abuse of process of law, as such, so far as these petitioners are concerned, the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 14.07.2009 passed in C.P. Case No.377 of 2009, pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad, are, hereby, quashed. 15. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and disposed of. 16. It is made clear that so far as other accused persons are concerned, this Court has not interfered with the entire criminal proceeding and the order taking cognizance and the learned Court will proceed, in accordance with law. 17. Interim order, if any granted by this Court, is vacated.