ORDER : Arun Monga, J. 1. Petitioners are before this Court seeking quashing of an FIR No.158/2024, dated 22.06.2024, registered at Mahila Police Station, District Bikaner and all consequential proceedings for offences under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 506and 307 of IPC. 2. The petitioners assert that they have been made accused without any material evidence against them and without attributing any role of any kind, so as to make them criminally culpable for the purported offences mentioned in the FIR. 3. Brief facts of the case are that complainant -Anupriya Mittal filed a complaint at Mahila Police Station, District Bikaner, alleging that her marriage with Petitioner No. 3, Dr. Aashish Mittal, was performed on 07.12.2015 as per Hindu customs. Despite dowry given at marriage, she claimed harassment by her husband for insufficient dowry within months of marriage. They have two daughters, aged 6 and 1.5 years. Allegations include habitual alcoholism, verbal abuse and threats by her husband. A Panchayat meeting was held due to ongoing harassment by her husband and mother-in-law (Petitioner No. 1). She alleges that on 21.06.2024, she was physically assaulted by her drunken husband, prompting her to seek refuge with her family. 4. The grounds taken in the petition are as follows: 4.1 It is contended that respondent No.2 left her matrimonial home voluntarily and was not forced out, the complainant's narrative is ex facie doubtful and lacks substance.. The involvement of Fanna Babu, the complainant's uncle and Director of Bikaji Company, raises suspicion and concerns about the impartiality of the police investigation, potentially leading to harassment under the guise of inquiry. On 06.07.2024, Dr. Aashish Mittal, the complainant's husband, was abruptly arrested on charges of criminal breach of tranquility, with questionable motives evident in attempts to incarcerate him under various sections. Police actions were aimed at bullying, including the addition of Section 307 of the IPC without clear evidence of serious injuries. Petitioner No.2-Ranjana aged about 45 years residing at Sirsa (in Haryana) is the married sister of the complainant’s husband. Petitioner No. 2 received a notice on 05.07.2024 to appear before the investigating agency in Sirsa, Haryana, lacking adequate details about her current residence. The petitioners are from a respected family in Bikaner City, including a doctor and well-educated members with no prior allegations against them during nine years of marriage of petitioner No. 3 with the complainant. Petitioner No. 2 received a notice on 05.07.2024 to appear before the investigating agency in Sirsa, Haryana, lacking adequate details about her current residence. The petitioners are from a respected family in Bikaner City, including a doctor and well-educated members with no prior allegations against them during nine years of marriage of petitioner No. 3 with the complainant. The FIR stems from the complainant's desire to separate from her marital home, when her escalating demands were not met by petitioner No.3. Thus, FIR in question deserves to be quashed.. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance gone through the record. 6. Complainant’s marriage with petitioner No. 3, Dr. Aashish Mittal was performed on 07.12.2015. They have two daughters, aged 6 and 1.5 years. It is the complainant’s allegation that on 21.06.2024, she was physically assaulted by her drunken husband, prompting her to seek refuge with her (parental) family. In the absence of any allegations to the contrary, it seems that since marriage on 07.12.2015 till 21.06.2024, the complainant and her husband had been living together in the matrimonial home at Bikaner (Rajasthan). 7. Petitioner No. 2 Ranjana aged about 45 years residing at Sirsa (in Haryana) is the married sister of the complainant’s husband. The allegations against her are non-specific and sans any details or particulars. 8. Petitioner No.1 Uma Mittal aged About 70 years the complainant’s mother-in-law. She is a senior citizen and is stated to be a chronic heart patient. 9. In Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar & Anr., (2014) 8 SCC 273 , the Apex Court laid down the following guidelines/directions:- “11. Our endeavour in this judgment is to ensure that police officers do not arrest the accused unnecessarily and Magistrate do not authorise detention casually and mechanically. 9. In Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar & Anr., (2014) 8 SCC 273 , the Apex Court laid down the following guidelines/directions:- “11. Our endeavour in this judgment is to ensure that police officers do not arrest the accused unnecessarily and Magistrate do not authorise detention casually and mechanically. In order to ensure what we have observed above, we give the following directions: 11.1 All the State Governments to instruct its police officers not to automatically arrest when a case under Section 498-A IPC is registered but to satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest under the parameters laid down above flowing from Section 41 CrPC; 11.2 All police officers be provided with a check list containing specified sub-clauses under Section 41(1)(b)(ii); 11.3 The police officer shall forward the check list duly filled and furnish the reasons and materials which necessitated the arrest, while forwarding/producing the accused before the Magistrate for further detention; 11.4. The Magistrate while authorising detention of the accused shall peruse the report furnished by the police officer in terms aforesaid and only after recording its satisfaction, the Magistrate will authorise detention; 11.5 The decision not to arrest an accused, be forwarded to the Magistrate within two weeks from the date of the institution of the case with a copy to the Magistrate which may be extended by the Superintendent of Police of the district for the reasons to be recorded in writing; 11.6 Notice of appearance in terms of Section 41-A CrPC be served on the accused within two weeks from the date of institution of the case, which may be extended by the Superintendent of Police of the district for the reasons to be recorded in writing; 11.7 Failure to comply with the directions aforesaid shall apart from rendering the police officers concerned liable for departmental action, they shall also be liable to be punished for contempt of court to be instituted before the High Court having territorial jurisdiction. 11.8 Authorising detention without recording reasons as aforesaid by the Judicial Magistrate concerned shall be liable for departmental action by the appropriate High Court.” 10. There is no gain saying that qua the relatives of the husband, it is expected of the investigating agency to strictly follow these guidelines/directions. 11. In somewhat similar circumstances, I have had an occasion to render a judgment in the case titled Amit Bhardwaj & Anr. Vs. There is no gain saying that qua the relatives of the husband, it is expected of the investigating agency to strictly follow these guidelines/directions. 11. In somewhat similar circumstances, I have had an occasion to render a judgment in the case titled Amit Bhardwaj & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.1625/2024), decided on 04.07.2024. Relevant part 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. 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. 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.” 12. Petitioner No.1 Uma Mittal aged about 70 years the complainant’s mother-in-law. She is a senior citizen and is stated to be a chronic heart patient. Given that she is a senior citizen and a chronic heart patient, it would be appropriate to direct that no coercive steps be taken against her. In case, the Investigating Officer records the finding that she is not cooperating and her custodial interrogation is required, 30 days’ prior notice shall be given to her under Section 41A of the Cr.P.C, in order to enable her to seek her legal remedy in accordance with law, including the recourse to taking appropriate steps under Section 36 of Cr.P.C. by approaching the superior officers. Needless to say that in case she takes such steps by approaching a competent officer, the competent officer shall look into her grievance and further take appropriate steps in accordance with law. 13. As stated above, petitioner No. 2 Ranjana aged about 45 years residing at Sirsa (in Haryana) is the married sister of the complainant’s husband. The allegations against her are non-specific and sans any details or particulars. 14. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that it is fit case where the FIR against petitioner No.2 deserves to be quashed. 15. As an upshot of the above discussion, the petition is partly allowed and the FIR No.158/2024, dated 22.06.2024, registered at Mahila Police Station, District Bikaner and all consequential proceedings for offences under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 506 and 307 of IPC against petitioner No. 2 Ranjana are quashed. As far as petitioner No.1 is concerned, it is directed that no coercive steps be taken against her. In case, the Investigating Officer records the finding that she is not cooperating and her custodial interrogation is required, 30 days’ prior notice shall be given to her under Section 41-A of the Cr.P.C, in order to enable her to seek legal remedy in accordance with law, including the recourse to taking appropriate steps under Section 36 of Cr.P.C. by approaching the superior officers. Needless to say that in case she takes such steps by approaching a competent officer, the competent officer shall look into her grievance and further take appropriate steps in accordance with law. 16. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.