complainant wherein it was alleged that the husband of his daughter was demanding money from her. The husband had married a lady. The CJM after perusing the case diary found no material against the family members, and as per order dated 27.06.1995 discharged the petitioners and took cognizance of offence under Sections 494 and 498A of the IPC only against the husband. The said case was subsequently compromised by wife and husband. In course of trial neither the complainant nor her father supported the allegation of demand and torture in view of settlement between the parties. After trial, the husband of the complainant was acquitted as per judgment dated 20.02.1996 passed in G.R.No.1371 of 1993/Trial No.423 of 1996. The complainant and her witnesses, in the present case have again asserted torture and assault against the husband and his family members (petitioners). I have carefully examined the facts asserted in complaint petition and the statement of witnesses. I find that the allegation of demand and torture is omnibus against the petitioners. These days, it is seen that exaggerated versions of the incident are reflected in a large number of complaints. The tendency of implication of family members has become affair of the day. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Preeti Gupta and another vs. State of Jharkhand and others reported in AIR 2010 SC 3363 at para 34 and 35 have observed as follows:-
