JUDGMENT : Chandra Shekhar Jha, J. 1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Present petition is being filed on behalf of petitioners for quashing the order dated 14.08.2023 as passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge 1 st , Bhagalpur in Criminal Revision No. 30 of 2021 by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1 st , Bhagalpur erroneously partly allowed the Revision Application of O.P. no. 2 and hold that the prima-facie case is made out against the petitioners and set aside the order dated 27.01.2021 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bhagalpur. 3. The brief fact of this case as per FIR, the informant/ O.P. No. 2 namely, Neha Kumari solemnized her marriage on 19.11.2017 with co-accused namely, Aditya Kumar @ Dipu, son of Late Laxmi Narayan, resident of Khadi Bhandar, Shastri Nagar, Chitragupt Mandir road, near to Bharti Niketan School, P.S.- Bagarmithanpura, District Muzaffarpur. It is alleged that the petitioners including other co-accused persons started torturing O.P. No. 2 physically and mentally after solemnization of marriage due to non- fulfillment of demand of dowry as raised for Rs. 2 lakh. It is also pointed out that in connection with alleged aforesaid demand on 06.10.2019, her husband namely Aditya Kumar @ Dipu came to her paternal home with both petitioners and again demanded Rs. 2 lakh. Lastly it is stated that her husband solemnized two marriage prior to her and this fact was concealed from her. 4. With aforesaid allegations/informatio Bhagalpur Mahila P.S. Case No. 01 of 2020 was lodged against petitioners and other named co-accused persons on 10.01.2020 for the offences punishable under Section 323, 341, 498(A) and 34 of IPC and ¾ of D.P. Act. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner no. 1 is brother-in-law of the husband of the O.P. No. 2 whereas petitioner no. 2 is the maternal uncle/mausa of the husband of O.P. No. 2 and they are distant relatives, admittedly living separately and having no connection with daily and domestic affairs of O.P. No. 2 and her husband namely, Aditya Kumar @ Dipu. It is submitted that the thrust of allegation is available against the husband of informant/ O.P. No. 2. 2 is the maternal uncle/mausa of the husband of O.P. No. 2 and they are distant relatives, admittedly living separately and having no connection with daily and domestic affairs of O.P. No. 2 and her husband namely, Aditya Kumar @ Dipu. It is submitted that the thrust of allegation is available against the husband of informant/ O.P. No. 2. It is pointed out that as informant came to know about the previous marriages of her husband, the present case was lodged falsely and entire family members including relatives total of 9 members made accused with present case. It is submitted that the allegations qua raising demand of dowry for Rs. 2 lakh is appearing very much general and omnibus against petitioner and they are implicated only being relatives of the husband. 6. While concluding argument, it is submitted that learned Judicial Magistrate not find a prima-facie case against petitioners and therefore, no cognizance was taken but the informant/ O.P. No. 2 filed a Revision petition before the Sessions court, as Cr. Rev. No. 30 of 2021, where the cognizance order dated 27.01.2021 was set aside and thereafter, on the basis of revisional order only, the cognizance was taken against petitioners. It is submitted that the revisional court failed to appreciate the aforesaid aspects as discussed and merely on the ground that as petitioners visited along with husband of O.P. No. 2 to paternal house of O.P. No. 2, they were implicated with present case. In support of his submission learned counsel relied upon the legal report of Hon’ble Supreme Court as available through Abhishek vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1083. 7. Mr. Devendra Kr. Pandey, learned counsel appearing for O.P. No. 2 submitted that petitioners are the persons who negotiated the marriage between the parties. It is pointed out that the revisional court rightly appreciated the fact that as petitioners visited on specific date i.e., on 06.10.2019 alongwith husband of O.P. No. 2 to her paternal home, in connection with raising demand of dowry of Rs. 2 lakh, the prima-facie case is made out against them. 8. It is pointed out that the revisional court rightly appreciated the fact that as petitioners visited on specific date i.e., on 06.10.2019 alongwith husband of O.P. No. 2 to her paternal home, in connection with raising demand of dowry of Rs. 2 lakh, the prima-facie case is made out against them. 8. It would be apposite to reproduce FIR, for better understanding of the factual aspect of this case:- lsok esa] Fkkuk v/;{k egksn; efgyk Fkkuk Hkkxyiqj egk'k;] fuosnu gS fd eSa ugsk dqekjh ¼mez 25 o"kZ½ firk Jh v'kksd dqekj jtd] eksgYyk vij fdfYou jksM] jsdkcxta Fkkuk rkrkjiqj] ftyk Hkkxyiqj dh jgus okyh gWAw esjh 'kknh fnukda 19@11@17 dks vkfnR; dqekj mQZ nhiw firk Lo0 y{eh ukjk;.k irk&[kknh Hk.Mkj 'kkL=h uxj fp=xqIr efanj jksM] fudV Hkkjrh fudsru fo|ky;] fo'kqunŸk iksLV jeuk] Fkkuk&uxj feBuiqjk ftyk eqtQ~Qjiqj ls gqbZ FkhA 'kknh ds ckn ,d lky eSa vius llqjky esa jgh FkhA llqjky esa esjh lkl ¼1½ yrk nosh ifr Lo0 y{eh ukjk.k ¼2½ jfo jtau ¼3½lquhy dqekj ¼4½larks"k dqekj ¼5½ uun xqfM;+k nosh rFkk ¼6½ ifr vkfnR; dqekj lHkh is0 Lo0 y{eh ukjk;.k] lHkh lkfdu [kknh Hk.Mkj 'kkL=h uxj fp=xqIr efanj jksM] fudV Hkkjrh fudsru fo|ky;] fo'kqunŸk iksLV jeuk] Fkkuk&cxj feBuiqjk ftyk eqtQ~Qjiqj ¼7½ uua nksb lqjs'k pkS/kjh ¼8½ esjh ekSlh csch nsoh ifr jes'k pkS/kjh ¼9½ ekSlk jes'k pkS/kjh lkfdu 'kkjnk uxj] dUgkSyh eB pkSjh [kknh Hk.Mkj Fkkuk&cxj feBuiqjk ftyk eqtQ~Qjiqj ;s lHkh yksx feydj eq>s yxkrkj izrkfM+r dj ekjihV djrs jgrs FksA rFkk ngst ds nks yk[k :i;k ekaxrs FksA rxa vkdj eSa vius ek;ds vk xbZA 6@10@2019 dks esjs ifr vkfnR; dqekj muds cguksbZ lqjs'k pkS/kjh rFkk ekSlk jes'k pkS/kjh esjs ek;ds vk, rFkk cksys fd ngst dk 2 yk[k :i;k nks] rc ge yM+d+h ysdj tk,xsA esjs firkth rFkk HkkbZ yksx dkQh le>k;k fdraq og yksx ugha ekudj eq>s rFkk esjs firk ,oa HkkbZ dks yIIkM&+FkIiM+ ls ekjihV fd,] rFkk tku ekjus dh /kedh nsrss gq, cksys fd tc rd ngst dk nks yk[k ugha nksxs rc rd yM+dh dks ugha ys tk,xsA fQj Hkh esjs firk ,oa HkkbZ yksx le>kSrk djus esa yxs gq, FksA ckn esa irk pyk fd esjs ifr igys ls gh nks 'kknh dj pqdk Fkk rFkk nksuksa iRuh dks ngst ds pyrs ekjihV dj Hkxk fn;kA tcfd eq>ls dqaokjk crkdj 'kknh fd;k x;k FkkA vr% Jheku~ ls izkFkZuk gS fd mijksDr lHkh O;fDr;ksa ij dkuwuh dkjokbZ dj eq>s U;k; fnykus dh d`ik dh tk,A ihfM+rk ussgk dqekjh 9. It would be further apposite to reproduce paragraph Nos. 12, 13, 14 ,15, 16 & 17 of Abhishek Case (supra) , which read as:- 12. The contours of the power to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are well defined. In V. Ravi Kumar v. State represented by Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Salem, Tamil Nadu [ (2019) 14 SCC 568 ], this Court affirmed that where an accused seeks quashing of the FIR, invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court, it is wholly impermissible for the High Court to enter into the factual arena to adjudge the correctness of the allegations in the complaint. In Neeharika Infrastructure (P). Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra [Criminal Appeal No. 330 of 2021, decided on 13.04.2021], a 3-Judge Bench of this Court elaborately considered the scope and extent of the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It was observed that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases, such standard not being confused with the norm formulated in the context of the death penalty. It was further observed that while examining the FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made therein, but if the Court thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, and more particularly, the parameters laid down by this Court in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab ( AIR 1960 SC 866 ) and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [(1992) Supp (1) SCC 335], the Court would have jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint. 13. Instances of a husband's family members filing a petition to quash criminal proceedings launched against them by his wife in the midst of matrimonial disputes are neither a rarity nor of recent origin. Precedents aplenty abound on this score. We may now take note of some decisions of particular relevance. Recently, in Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam v. State of Bihar [ (2022) 6 SCC 599 ], this Court had occasion to deal with a similar situation where the High Court had refused to quash a FIR registered for various offences, including Section 498A IPC. We may now take note of some decisions of particular relevance. Recently, in Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam v. State of Bihar [ (2022) 6 SCC 599 ], this Court had occasion to deal with a similar situation where the High Court had refused to quash a FIR registered for various offences, including Section 498A IPC. Noting that the foremost issue that required determination was whether allegations made against the in-laws were general omnibus allegations which would be liable to be quashed, this Court referred to earlier decisions wherein concern was expressed over the misuse of Section 498A IPC and the increased tendency to implicate relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes. This Court observed that false implications by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial disputes, if left unchecked, would result in misuse of the process of law. On the facts of that case, it was found that no specific allegations were made against the in-laws by the wife and it was held that allowing their prosecution in the absence of clear allegations against the in-laws would result in an abuse of the process of law. It was also noted that a criminal trial, leading to an eventual acquittal, would inflict severe scars upon the accused and such an exercise ought to be discouraged. 14. In Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand [ (2010) 7 SCC 667 ], this Court noted that the tendency to implicate the husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon in complaints filed under Section 498A IPC. It was observed that 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, as allegations of harassment by husband's close relations, who were living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided, would add an entirely different complexion and such allegations would have to be scrutinised with great care and circumspection. 15. 15. Earlier, in Neelu Chopra v. Bharti [ (2009) 10 SCC 184 ], this Court observed that the mere mention of statutory provisions and the language thereof, for lodging a complaint, is not the ‘be all and end all’ of the matter, as what is required to be brought to the notice of the Court is the particulars of the offence committed by each and every accused and the role played by each and every accused in the commission of that offence. These observations were made in the context of a matrimonial dispute involving Section 498A IPC. 16. Of more recent origin is the decision of this Court in Mahmood Ali v. State of U.P. (Criminal Appeal No. 2341 of 2023, decided on 08.08.2023) on the legal principles applicable apropos Section 482 Cr.P.C. Therein, it was observed that when an accused comes before the High Court, invoking either the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed, essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances, the High Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. It was further observed that it will not be enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not as, in frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection, to try and read between the lines. 17. In Bhajan Lal (supra), this Court had set out, by way of illustration, the broad categories of cases in which the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. could be exercised. Para 102 of the decision reads as follows: “102. 17. In Bhajan Lal (supra), this Court had set out, by way of illustration, the broad categories of cases in which the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. could be exercised. Para 102 of the decision reads as follows: “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first informant report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent persons can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent persons can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 10. In view of aforesaid factual aspect, it appears that the petitioners who are is brother-in-law (nandosi) and petitioner no. 2 who is (mausa)/ maternal uncle are distant relatives and living separately. It further appears that their implication with present case only out of their relations with husband of O.P. No. 2 namely, Aditya Kumar @ Dipu. It also transpires that the thrust of allegations are available against the husband of O.P. No. 2 and moreover, FIR suggest that petitioners visited paternal village of O.P. No. 2 alongwith her husband on occasion of bidagiri . Allegations of raising demand of dowry is appearing very much general and omnibus against petitioners, where dispute surfaced after knowing the fact that husband of O.P. No. 2 had also solemnized marriage with another girl prior to her marriage. 11. In view of aforesaid by taking guiding note of Abhishek case (supra), the order as passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge 1 st , Bhagalpur in Criminal Revision No. 30 of 2021 is hereby quashed/set aside alongwith all its consequential proceedings, if any. 12. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the learned trial court forthwith.