ORDER : Arun Monga, J. 1. The petitioners are a couple and, being brother-in-law and sister, respectively of the husband of complainant-wife, are implicated in FIR No. 0285/2021, dated 24.07.2021, for alleged offences under Sections 498-A, 406, and 323 of the IPC arising out of the matrimonial discord of complainant with her husband. 2. They have approached this Court seeking the quashing of the aforesaid FIR against them, asserting that they have been made accused without any material evidence against them and, without any role attributed of the kind, so as to make them criminally culpable for the purported offenses mentioned in the FIR. 3. The relevant facts and allegations in the FIR as pleaded in the petition herein are as follows : 3.1 The complainant/respondent No. 2 filed a written complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Sri Ganganagar on 24.07.2021, alleging that she married the accused, Mr. Vivek Malik, on 28.11.2020, and her family gave dowry to the accused. The day after her marriage, the accused began criticizing her for not bringing enough dowry, took all her jewelry, and physically assaulted her. It is further alleged that when she and her husband moved to Manesar, her mother-in-law followed them to dictate their living. She harassed her for not bringing enough dowry. The next day, it is alleged that her mother-in-law argued with her and physically assaulted her. However, her husband intervened and promised such incidents would not happen again. On the day of Makar Sankranti, respondent No. 2 alleges that the petitioners herein came to her matrimonial home, criticized her for not bringing enough dowry. They hurled abuses at her. It is further alleged that petitioner No. 2 even pushed her and petitioner No.1 twisted her arm. 3.2 When her husband was posted to Haridwar, respondent No. 2 returned to her parental home in Suratgarh. She alleges that her mother-in-law called her parents, threatening to ruin her marriage. Following this incident, petitioner No. 1 and her husband visited respondent No. 2's parental home and assured that she would not be harassed anymore. Respondent No. 2 then returned to Manesar with her husband. Everything remained cordial for a few days until her mother-in-law returned to Manesar and yet again physically assaulted her, and harassed her for not bringing enough dowry. Respondent No. 2 then returned to Manesar with her husband. Everything remained cordial for a few days until her mother-in-law returned to Manesar and yet again physically assaulted her, and harassed her for not bringing enough dowry. When respondent No. 2 shared this with her husband, he slapped her and ordered her to follow everything that his mother said. Respondent No. 2 discussed the incident with her parents, who then called Vivek Malik/husband to meet them at her uncle's residence in Gurgaon. It is alleged that when her parents tried to counsel her husband, he rigidly told them that she must follow whatever his mother said, or he wouldn't take her back. The next day, her mother-in-law allegedly called her aunt and mother, threatening to break the marriage. It is alleged by her that her husband and mother-in-law refused to return the dowry articles. Hence the FIR. 4. The petitioners had to file an anticipatory bail petition before the learned Additional District and Sessions Court, Suratgarh. The same was allowed by the court on 24.08.2021. Respondent No. 2 filed Criminal Misc. Application 135/2022 before the High Court on 02.05.2022, which resulted in an order on 12.05.2022 directing her husband Vivek Malik to appear before the Investigating Officer, Suratgarh, on or before 23.05.2022 to hand over the dowry articles according to the list. On 23.05.2022, Vivek Malik appeared before the Investigating Officer and returned the remaining articles. 4.1. It is stated in the petition herein that all the alleged dowry articles were thus either taken away by respondent No. 2 and her family. Most items were taken away when they first came to the NSG campus on 01.04.2021. Later, on 10.10.2021, the petitioners, along with husband Vivek Malik and mother-in-law Mrs. Manju Malik, appeared before the Investigating Officer and returned many items from the list to the wife. 4.1. It is stated in the petition that despite the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners, the Investigating Officer and the Superintendent of Police, Sri Ganganagar, refused to accept their bail bonds. Aggrieved by this continuous harassment, the petitioners filed yet another S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition 2995/2022 before this Court, resulting in an order that the Investigating Officer shall accept the bail bonds if furnished by the petitioners. The petitioners appeared before the Investigating Officer on 27.05.2022 and furnished a bail bond of Rs. 50,000 each. Aggrieved by this continuous harassment, the petitioners filed yet another S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition 2995/2022 before this Court, resulting in an order that the Investigating Officer shall accept the bail bonds if furnished by the petitioners. The petitioners appeared before the Investigating Officer on 27.05.2022 and furnished a bail bond of Rs. 50,000 each. Despite returning all items per the list submitted by respondent No. 2, it is alleged by her that all articles have not been returned and petitioners are being harassed. Hence, this petition. 5. In this backdrop, I have heard the learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor defending the FIR against the petitioners. 6. The sum and substance of the Public Prosecutor's argument is that the charge sheet was filed back in 2022, and the trial is ongoing before the competent court. Therefore, the FIR cannot be quashed at this late stage. The truth will be revealed only after evidence is adduced before the learned trial court, he would argue. 7. After careful consideration, I am unable to agree with the learned Public Prosecutor's arguments. The reasons are not far to seek. Let us see how. 8. Pertinently, the petitioners are residents of Ghaziabad. The matrimonial home is in Suratgarh, where the complainant resided with her husband. A perusal of the FIR shows no direct allegations of such type against petitioners indicating that they caused any cruelty or instigated or conspired with the husband to commit the alleged offenses. It appears mere bald allegations of physical assault have been made against the petitioners. It is alleged in that petitioner no.2/sister of the complainant’s husband had pushed/hit her one day, due to which she fell down. Qua petitioner no.1, brother in law, allegation is that he held complainant’s hand and twisted it. 9. The learned Senior Counsel has rightly pointed out that on the basis of such fictitious allegations that the sister of the husband and the brother-in-law came from Ghaziabad to Suratgarh and committed cruelty, they could not have been made accused. 10. Upon reviewing the FIR, there is no mention of any physical injury attributed to the petitioners, thus not attracting Section 323 IPC. The same applies to Section 406, as there is no indication that the sister-in-law and the brother-in-law came to Suratgarh from Ghaziabad to commit any act amounting to criminal breach of trust. 11. 10. Upon reviewing the FIR, there is no mention of any physical injury attributed to the petitioners, thus not attracting Section 323 IPC. The same applies to Section 406, as there is no indication that the sister-in-law and the brother-in-law came to Suratgarh from Ghaziabad to commit any act amounting to criminal breach of trust. 11. The third section invoked in the FIR is Section 498-A of the IPC. To better understand its application to the petitioners, the said section is reproduced below : 498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.— Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation. —For the purposes of this section, “cruelty” means— (a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.” 12. Having perused the section, ibid, the recourse the complainant can take at best is the explanation given in sub section (b) of Section 498-A, which envisages a willful act of such nature that it causes harassment to the wife/complainant herein or coercion causing duress to meet an unlawful demand for property or valuable security. 13. When the contents of the FIR are read in light of the ingredients of Section 498-A(b), it is apparent that the same does not make out any case in the absence of any allegations as per the nature of this section. 14. In the aforesaid context, reference may be had to the judgment rendered in Preeti Gupta & Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr., (2010) 7 SCC 667 , it has also been observed:- “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. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr., (2010) 7 SCC 667 , it has also been observed:- “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. 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 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.” 15. Furthermore, in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Anr., (2014) 8 SCC 273 , it has been observed/held thus :- “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, bedridden grandfathers and grand-mothers of the husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested.” 15. In Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors., (2022) 6 SCC 599 , Supreme Court reiterated as under: “17. The above mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this 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. The above mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this 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. 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, his 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.” 16. No doubt, section 498-A, ibid, was introduced to protect women from dowry harassment and cruelty by their husbands and in-laws. However, an increased tendency to implicate the husband's relatives in matrimonial disputes, without proper scrutiny, for collateral gains, leads to potential misuse of the same. 17. There is another aspect of the matter, which is, that the implications of such misuse may even extend to the complainant. For the complainant, a frivolous case may divert attention from genuine issues and undermine the credibility of legitimate complaints. On the other hand, for the accused, especially the relatives of the husband, as the petitioners herein, it leads to unwarranted legal battles, social stigma, and emotional distress. It is thus crucial to establish a prima facie case against the accused to prevent the misuse of legal provisions and ensure that the judicial process is not exploited. 18. General and omnibus allegations, which are broad and non-specific, often do not withstand legal scrutiny. Such allegations, if unchecked, can lead to the misuse of the process of law. This misuse could result in unnecessary trials that can have long-term ramifications for all parties involved. A word of judicial caution thus may not be out of place here, urging the learned trial courts to avoid proceeding against the husband’s relatives without a clear and specific prima facie case. The intent and duty of the court ought to prevent the legal harassment of individuals have no substantial involvement in the alleged matrimonial cruelty. 19. A word of judicial caution thus may not be out of place here, urging the learned trial courts to avoid proceeding against the husband’s relatives without a clear and specific prima facie case. The intent and duty of the court ought to prevent the legal harassment of individuals have no substantial involvement in the alleged matrimonial cruelty. 19. Moreover, the learned courts ought to be mindful that long-term ramifications of proceeding with weak or baseless cases cause a burden on judicial system, miscarriage of justice, and a detrimental impact on the accused’s personal and professional lives. It also risks discrediting the genuine purpose of Section 498A IPC, which is, to provide protection and justice to victims of dowry harassment and matrimonial cruelty. While Section 498A IPC is crucial for protecting women from matrimonial cruelty and dowry harassment, its misuse through broad and unsubstantiated allegations against the husband’s relatives must be checked. Courts must ensure that allegations are thoroughly scrutinized, and prima facie evidence is established before proceeding with trials. This approach not only preserves the integrity of the judicial system but also protects innocent individuals from unnecessary legal and social hardships. 20. Bare facts in the present case reflect misuse of Section 498A IPC. Petitioners are not directly involved in the matrimonial issues, but yet, based on broad, non-specific allegations have been implicated in the FIR. 21. In light of the aforesaid, the petition is allowed. The impugned FIR No.0285/2021, dated 24.07.2021, under Sections 498-A, 406 and 323 of IPC is quashed qua the petitioners with consequences to follow. 22. The trial against the other co-accused shall continue as before in accordance with law.