ORDER : Arun Monga, J. 1. Petitioners, residents of Dubai, have been arrayed as accused in an FIR No.60/2024, dated 12.04.2024, registered at Mahila Police Station, District Jodhpur City West and all consequential proceedings for offences under Sections 498-A, 460, 323, 420, 354 & 34 IPC, arising out of matrimonial discord between complainant wife and her husband who. Husband and wife are both reside in India at Jodhpur. 2. The inter se relationships of the petitioners with complainant/respondent No.2 are that petitioners No.1, 2 & 4 are brothers-in-law and petitioner No.3 is sister-in-law of complainant being wife of petitioner No.4. 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 any kind, so as to make them criminally culpable for the purported offenses mentioned in the FIR. Husband of complainant is not before the court. 3. Briefly speaking the relevant facts as pleaded in the petition leading to the FIR in question are that the complainant, a Nursing Officer, married Prem Kumar 22 years ago in Jodhpur. Initially, her life at her in-laws' home was peaceful, but tensions arose due to alleged harassment by her mother-in-law regarding dowry. Her brothers-in-law and sister-in-law, who live abroad, influenced her mother-in-law's behavior. The complainant's husband left his job after marriage and relied on her income. During her pregnancy, she received no support from him or her mother-in-law. Additionally, one brother-in-law, Suresh, behaved inappropriately towards her, which was allegedly ignored by her husband and mother-in-law. These grievances led to the filing of the FIR, which is now being challenged for its validity before the court. 4. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned public prosecutor. 5. At the very outset, learned Public prosecutor would defend the FIR are and submit that law will take its own course and no interference is warranted by this court. He submits that in case all or any of the petitioners are found innocent after investigation, the closure report will be filed in accordance with law and the petitioners have nothing to be fearful of. He submits that investigation is taking place in fair and impartial manner and therefore the petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. He submits that in case all or any of the petitioners are found innocent after investigation, the closure report will be filed in accordance with law and the petitioners have nothing to be fearful of. He submits that investigation is taking place in fair and impartial manner and therefore the petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. On the other hand, learned it counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that the FIR is in complete abuse of process of law by the complainant wife. No doubt, she has serious matrimonial dispute with her husband, but in order to put collateral pressure on her husband, all the other family members cannot be falsely implicated by her, knowing fully well that they have no role to play in the matrimonial acrimony. He would argue that being added as an accused in an FIR in it self is mental and physical harassment, apart from undergoing the agony of being treated as a suspect. That too, when no criminal culpability is made out from the contents of the FIR against the petitioners. 7. He would further lay stress on the fact that it is undeniable that the complainant, Veena, and the petitioner's son, Prem Kumar, only resided with the petitioners for an exceedingly short period. The petitioners, who currently reside in Dubai, have consistently shown Veena the utmost respect and care. 7.1. Petitioners No. 3 and 4, a married couple whose union predates Veena's marriage and reside at Dubai. This fact irrefutably demonstrates the baselessness and falsity of the FIR lodged by the complainant. 8. I have heard the rival contentions. A cursory examination of the FIR reveals its glaring deficiencies, most notably the absence of any specific date or time concerning the alleged dowry demands attributed to the petitioners. This conspicuous lack of detail unequivocally proves that the petitioners have no involvement, whatsoever, in the alleged offense. The complainant's allegations, conveniently made several years post-marriage, are a transparent attempt to manufacture a case where none exists against the petitioners. Consequently, I am of the opinion, the registration and investigation of the present FIR qua petitioners herein, are nothing short of a gross abuse of the legal process and must be quashed and set aside immediately. 9. In somewhat similar circumstances, I have had an occasion to render a judgment in case titled Amit Bhardwaj & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. 9. In somewhat similar circumstances, I have had an occasion to render a judgment in case titled Amit Bhardwaj & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.1625/2024), decided on 04.07.2024, relevant thereof is reproduced hereinabove:- “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, bed-ridden 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.” 10. In view of the aforesaid reasoning rendered in the judgment, ibid, which is equally applicable to the present case as well, I see no reason why the benefit thereof be not accorded to the petitioners. 11. Ex facie, the contents of the FIR do not establish any culpability on the part of the petitioners, who are the sister-in-law and brother-in-law (couple) and two other brothers in law of the complainant (wife). It is conceded by her that they did not attend the marriage at the relevant time as they reside in Dubai. Moreover, the sole allegation made against them is that, since they telephonically communicated with the mother-in-law of complainant, they have conspired to commit offenses under Section 498A of the IPC. 12. It is conceded by her that they did not attend the marriage at the relevant time as they reside in Dubai. Moreover, the sole allegation made against them is that, since they telephonically communicated with the mother-in-law of complainant, they have conspired to commit offenses under Section 498A of the IPC. 12. I am of the view that such bald allegations, lacking any specific particulars, do not establish any case against the petitioners. These allegations appear to have been made with a collateral motive stemming from matrimonial acrimony. 13. No doubt FR is at the instance of the complainant and to the extent having once informed with regard to commission of the crime, she is a stakeholder. However, in matters of crimes, which are against the society or woman as a whole representing their gender once the information, in respect of the alleged crime has been taken note of by the prosecution. Thereafter, it becomes the responsibility and duty of the state to prosecute the guilty, if so found. In that context, above the view that the role of the complainant, once the prosecution has taken over, the duty to prosecute on behalf of the state is confined to render assistance to the prosecution and not conduct a parallel prosecution on her own. 14. As an upshot, the instant petition is allowed. The FIR No.60/2024, dated 12.04.2024, registered at Mahila Police Station, District Jodhpur City West and all consequential proceedings for offences under Sections 498-A, 460, 323, 420, 354 & 34 IPC, qua the petitioners, are hereby quashed. 15. In the parting, I may hasten to add that the complainant/wife is not represented since notice has not been issued to her. Given the nature of order, which has been passed, I am of the view that no prejudice would be caused to the complainant/wife as the FIR is being quashed only qua the family members of the husband based on ex facie contents of the FIR and the statement made by her in the same. Furthermore, issuance of notice would entail unnecessary litigation expenses to be borne by her while her real dispute qua the allegations made by her, has been kept alive qua her husband and other family members, if any, involved in the lis. 16. Furthermore, issuance of notice would entail unnecessary litigation expenses to be borne by her while her real dispute qua the allegations made by her, has been kept alive qua her husband and other family members, if any, involved in the lis. 16. Be that as it may, in case, during or after completion of investigation of the other accused, if it is so found that there is enough incriminating material against the petitioners or any of them, the prosecution is granted liberty to file appropriate application before the learned competent court below seeking permission to array any of them as an accused. 17. Pending applications(s), if any, stand disposed of.