JUDGMENT : Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned counsel appearing for the respondent State and learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2. 2. The prayer in the writ petition is made for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 04.07.2022 arising out of Manjhiaon P.S. Case No.119 of 2021 whereby the learned Court has been pleased to take cognizance under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act pending in the Court of learned A.C.J.M. Garhwa. 3. The FIR was registered alleging therein that the Respondent No.2 got married with one Kumar Sajan Suman on 19.04.2019. It has further been alleged that at the time of marriage several gifts and furniture alongwith utensils were given by the father of the Respondent No.2 and after marriage the both husband and wife started living in the in-laws house at Garhwa. It has further been alleged after the birth of the daughter the husband and all the relatives of the husband started asking 05 lakhs as dowry and also tried to kill the Respondent No.2 and for which the Respondent No.2 filed a complaint case No. 1430 of 2020 and after Institution of the said complaint case the husband of the Respondent No.2 compromised the said case in order to defraud the Respondent No.2 and in the mediation center the accused persons including her husband shown their willingness to maintain the Respondent No.2 with full dignity and thereafter the Respondent No.2 was again taken by her husband from her paternal house to her matrimonial house. It has further been alleged after the Respondent No.2 taken to her matrimonial house all the accused persons started taunting the Respondent No.2 and were saying that they have compromised this case just in order to defraud the Respondent No.2 and they again started demanding Rs. 5 lakhs and if the said amount is not paid then she will not be allowed to live in her matrimonial house and the accused persons namely Kumar Sajan Suman, Prem Bharti started telling the Respondent No.2 that she is implicating them in a criminal case now she will understand the consequences of the same and she will be brutally assaulted every day while she will be staying in her in laws place. It has further been alleged that the Respondent No.2 tried to convince all the accused persons that they should forget that has happened in the past and prayed before them that she should be allowed to live in her matrimonial house but all the accused persons especially the accused no.1 and the petitioner Prem Bharti were told the other family members that the Respondent No.2 be stopped from giving any food and for filthy reasons they used to assault the Respondent No.2. It has been lastly alleged that Respondent No.2 any how sent the news of torture being meted out to her father then the father of the Respondent No.2 immediately informed the Officer-In-Charge Utari Road, Palamu on 18.11.2020 and in the Police Station the Police Officers told to take back her daughter from there. It has further been alleged that on 05.07.2021 all the accused persons again went to the house of the father of Respondent No.2 in two Bolero vehicles for the purpose of taking her back and also gave an assurance to her father that they will not torture the Respondent No.2 and they will not ask for any additional dowry and further stated that the Grand Mother in law is ill and she wants to see the Respondent No.2 and thereafter on hearing this the Respondent No.2 went along with her husband to her in laws. It has also been alleged that when the Respondent No.2 reached near the village of her matrimonial home then all the accused person again started torturing the Respondent No.2 and stated that this time, they will not leave her and since the father of the Respondent No.2 has not fulfilled the demand of Rs. 5 lakhs and even tried to assault her child as well as also tried to strangulate the Respondent No.2 but anyhow she was rescued. On the basis of such allegations the complaint petition was filed after filing of the complaint petition the learned A.C.J.M, Garhwa was pleased to refer the said complaint for institution of FIR under section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C which was registered as Manjhiaon P.S. Case No. 119 of 2021. 4. On the basis of such allegations the complaint petition was filed after filing of the complaint petition the learned A.C.J.M, Garhwa was pleased to refer the said complaint for institution of FIR under section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C which was registered as Manjhiaon P.S. Case No. 119 of 2021. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioner No.1 is the maternal brother-in-law, petitioner No.2 is the maternal brother, petitioner No.3 is the brother-in-law, petitioner No.4 is the brother-in-law of the respondent No.2, petitioner No.5 is the villager and friend of the husband of the respondent No.2, petitioner No.6 is the uncle-in-law, petitioner No.7 is the brother-in-law of the respondent No.2 respectively. He submits that the said case was filed in the form of complaint case which was referred under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. by the learned Court pursuant to that the said FIR was registered. He further submits that the police has investigated the matter and these petitioners have not been sent up for trial and only the charge-sheet was submitted against the husband under Section 498(A) of the IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. He then submits that, however, the learned Court differing with the final form has been pleased to take cognizance. He draws the attention of the Court to another complaint being contained in Annexure-3 and submits that in the said case these petitioners have not been made accused, however, that case was registered by the respondent No.2 herself. He submits that even in the second case in the solemn affirmation, she has not described any complicity of these petitioners. He submits that the learned Court has erred in taking cognizance against the petitioners in absence of any material. He further submits that in the contents of the complaint, there are general and omnibus allegation against the petitioners. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent State submits that the police has already investigated the matter and submitted the final form, however, the learned Court has been pleased to take cognizance on its own. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 submits that the case is made out and in view of that the learned Court has rightly taken the cognizance. He submits that the said order is a reasoned one, as such this Court may not interfere with the said order as well as the entire criminal proceeding. 7. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 submits that the case is made out and in view of that the learned Court has rightly taken the cognizance. He submits that the said order is a reasoned one, as such this Court may not interfere with the said order as well as the entire criminal proceeding. 7. In view of the above submission of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on record and finds that admittedly the case was filed in the form of the complaint case which was sent up by the learned Court under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. which was investigated by the police and final form was submitted and these petitioners have not been sent up for trial, however, the learned Court has been pleased to take cognizance differing with the final form. There is no doubt that the learned Court is competent to differ with the final form and can take cognizance, however, prima facie material is required to be disclosed in the order taking cognizance which is absent in the case in hand. Looking into the contents of the complaint, it transpires that there are general and omnibus allegation and even the cognizance have been taken against the friend and neighbour of the husband of the respondent No.2. 8. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Sharma and Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Anr. reported in (2018) 10 SCC 472 has observed as under:- 14. Section 498A 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. The expression ‘cruelty’ in Section 498A covers conduct which may drive the women to commit suicide or cause grave injury (mental or physical) or danger to life or harassment with a view to coerce her to meet unlawful demand.8 It is a matter of serious concern that large number of cases continue to be filed under Section 498A alleging harassment of married women. We have already referred to some of the statistics from the Crime Records Bureau. We have already referred to some of the statistics from the Crime Records Bureau. This Court had earlier noticed the fact that most of such complaints are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues. 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. 9. In the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Anr. reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273 Hon’ble the Supreme Court has held that the 498A cases have been filed by the disgruntled wives and even the close relatives are unnecessarily made accused. In a quite number of cases, bed-ridden grandfathers and grandmothers of the husbands have been made accused and that was considered in the case of Arnesh Kumar versus State of Bihar and Anr. (supra). 10. In the case of Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. versus State of UP & Anr. reported in (2012) 10 SCC 741 in paragraph No.21 it was held as under:- 21. It would be relevant at this stage to take note of an apt observation of this Court recorded in the matter of G.V. Rao vs. L.H.V. Prasad & Ors. reported in (2000) 3 SCC 693 wherein also in a matrimonial dispute, this Court had held that the High Court should have quashed the complaint arising out of a matrimonial dispute wherein all family members had been roped into the matrimonial litigation which was quashed and set aside. Their Lordships observed therein with which we entirely agree that: “there has been an outburst of matrimonial dispute in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate the disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their “young” days in chasing their cases in different courts.” The view taken by the judges in this matter was that the courts would not encourage such disputes. 11. In the case of K. Subba Rao v. The State of Telangana, reported in (2018) 14 SCC 452 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the Courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. 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. The above judgments clearly suggests that the Supreme Court has expressed concern over misuse of Section 498A of the IPC and the increased tendency of making accused of the relatives of the husband and that is being done without analyzing the long-term ramifications of a trial on complaint as well as the accused. 13. Coming to the facts of the present case upon perusal of the contents of the complaints which was converted into FIR, it is revealed that general allegations are levelled against the petitioners. There is no specific and distinct allegations against the petitioners and in view of that the police has rightly submitted the final form against the husband only and the learned Court has taken the cognizance differing with the final form and prima face materials are not disclosed in the order taking cognizance, as such so far these petitioners are concerned the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 04.07.2022 arising out of Manjhiaon P.S. Case No.119 of 2021 pending in the Court of learned A.C.J.M. Garhwa is hereby quashed. 14. This petition is allowed and disposed of. 15. 14. This petition is allowed and disposed of. 15. It is made clear that this Court has not quashed the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance, so far Kumar Sajan Suman, who happens to be the husband of respondent No.2 is concerned and trial of husband of respondent No.2 will proceed in accordance with law.