JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 CrPC with the prayer to quashing and set aside the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case no. 236 of 2023 as well as the order taking cognizance dated 14.07.2023 in connection with Complaint Case no. 236 of 2023 whereby and where under, learned JMFC, Bermo at Tenughat found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 427 and 506 of the IPC and passed the summoning order against the petitioners. 3. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners being the relatives of the husband of the complainant, first falsely lodged Giddi P.S. case no. 101 of 2022 against the complainant– Opp. Party no. 2 herein, alleging that the she abetted the suicide of her own husband and in that case, the complainant – Opp. Party no. 2 was remanded to judicial custody. After remaining in jail for a considerable period of time in connection with that case, the complainant– Opp. Party no. 2 herein was enlarged on bail. There is further allegation of the complainant– Opp. Party no. 2 herein that the husband of the complainant – Opp. Party no. 2 committed suicide, as he was pressurized by the petitioners to press for dowry demand of motorcycle to be brought by the complainant from her parents. As after being granted bail, the complainant was not allowed to enter inside her matrimonial house, hence, she was staying in a room in the house of her paternal uncle at Bokaro Thermal. It is also alleged that on 25.02.2023 at 6.00 P.M., all the accused persons of the case, that is the petitioners committed house trespass and they entered into the said room of the complainant with an intent to commit the offence of mischief and criminal intimidation and they vandalized the room of the complainant – Opp. Party no. 2 by throwing the articles and thereby diminishing their values and committed theft of money and jewellery and also committed criminal intimidation by threatening the complainant – Opp. Party no. 2 with an intent to terrorise the complainant so that she will not to demand her share from the property of her husband; which was the joint property of the petitioners and accused the complainant – Opp. Party no. 2. Party no. 2 with an intent to terrorise the complainant so that she will not to demand her share from the property of her husband; which was the joint property of the petitioners and accused the complainant – Opp. Party no. 2. On the basis of the complaint, the statement of the complainant on Solemn Affirmation and the statement of the inquiry witnesses, learned JMFC Bermo at Tenugant found prima facie case for the said offences. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of the State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, submits that the category 7 of the Para-102 of the said judgment, which reads as under:- “(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.” that the said category is squarely applicable to the facts of this case as the present complaint case is manifestly attended with malafide and the prosecution is maliciously instituted with ulterior movie for wrecking vengeance on the petitioners and with a view to spite them due to private and personal grudge; as the petitioner no. 1 lodged FIR of Giddi P.S. case no. 101 of 2023 against the complainant – Opp. Party no. 2. 5. 1 lodged FIR of Giddi P.S. case no. 101 of 2023 against the complainant – Opp. Party no. 2. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners next relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Achin Gupta vs. State of Haryana & Another, 2024 INSC 369 and submits that in para 31 thereof, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the facts and circumstances of that case, where the appellants before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and his family members were alleged to have demanded dowry and thereby caused mental and physical trauma to the first informant, by shortly after marriage, started harassing the first informant on the false pretext that she has failed to discharge her duty as a wife and pressurized her for some more dowry and the appellant before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India was alleged to be an alcoholic and used to beat her regularly, raised her hands on the first informant and treated her inhumanly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed that if the court is convinced by the fact of the case concerned, that the involvement of the complainant or her husband or his close relatives is with an oblique motive, then even if the FIR and the chargesheet disclose the commission of the cognizable offence, still the court with a view to do substantial justice, should read in between the lines, the oblique motive of the complainant and take pragmatic view of the matter and therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India considering the conduct of the parents of the wife, making mountain out of a mole and in the facts of that case, came to the conclusion that if the criminal proceeding are allowed to continue against the appellant, the same will be nothing short of abuse of process of law and quashed the entire criminal proceeding. It is next submitted that in this case also, the complaint case has been filed with an oblique motive only to harass the petitioners because the petitioner no. 1 instituted Giddi P.S. case no. 101 of 2022, against the complainant- Opp. Party no. 2, hence, it is submitted that this is a fit case where the power under Section 482 of CrPC be exercised to quash the entire criminal proceeding. 6. 1 instituted Giddi P.S. case no. 101 of 2022, against the complainant- Opp. Party no. 2, hence, it is submitted that this is a fit case where the power under Section 482 of CrPC be exercised to quash the entire criminal proceeding. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners next relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of B.N. John vs. State of U.P. and Anr. 2025 INSC 4 and submits that in facts of that case, wherein in the FIR, the vital facts to constitute the offence punishable under Section 353 of IPC i.e. assault or criminal force being applied was absent and at best, the only offence that could be made out was the one, punishable under Section 186 of IPC which is non-cognizable offence, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that as even in respect of the offence punishable under Section 186 of IPC, the due process contemplated under the provisions of law was not followed; so that was a fit case for quashing the criminal proceeding against the appellant before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and quashed the criminal proceeding. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners next relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of M/s JM Laboratories and Others vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another , 2025 INSC 127 and submits that as therein the summoning order was totally non-speaking one, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India quashed the summoning order passed by the trial court. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners next relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Anukul Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another , 2025 INSC 1153 and submits that in the facts of that case, where the machinery of criminal law was misused for settling civil disputes or to wreak vengeance, it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that the High Court, in that case, mis-directed itself in law by failing to apply the ratio laid down in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra). 9. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners next relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of the Mohammad Wajid and Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others in Criminal Appeal No. 2340 of 2023 dated 08.08.2023, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the facts of that case, considered that criminal antecedent of the accused, cannot be the sole consideration to decline to quash the criminal proceedings and an accused has a legitimate right to say before the Court that howsoever bad his antecedents may be, still if the FIR fails to disclose commission of any offence or the case falls within one of the parameters as laid down in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra), then the Court should not decline to quash the criminal case only on the ground that the accused is a history sheeter. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners next relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Gulam Mustafa vs. The State of Karnataka and Another , 2023 Live Law (SC) 421 and submits that in para 27 of that judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India relied upon its own judgment in the case of the S.W. Palanitkar vs. State of Bihar , (2002) 1 SCC 24 wherein it was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that in appropriate cases, to prevent judicial process from being an instrument of oppression or harassment in the hands of frustrated or vindictive litigants, exercise of inherent power is not only desirable but necessary also, so that the judicial forum of court may not be allowed to be utilized for any oblique motive. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners by drawing attention of the Court to the Article 141 of the Constitution of India submits that the same provides that the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India, hence, the law declared in the judgments relied upon by the petitioners, is binding on this court, hence, it is submitted that prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 12. Learned Addl. PP and learned counsel for the Opp. Party no. 12. Learned Addl. PP and learned counsel for the Opp. Party no. 2, on the other hand, vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioners and submit that unlike the case of Achin Gupta vs. State of Haryana & Another (supra), the offence involved in this case is not one under section 498A of IPC. It is further submitted that in this case, though there was allegation against the petitioners of also demanding dowry in the shape of motorcycle to be brought by the complainant but the said occurrence was before the death of the husband of complainant – Opp. Party no. 2. The real dispute began after the death of the husband of the complainant – Opp. Party no. 2 and the real dispute is because complainant – Opp. Party no. 2, who is undisputedly the wife of the son of the petitioner no. 1, is claiming the share in the joint property of her deceased husband from the petitioners. The undisputed fact remains that the petitioner no. 1 lodged Giddi P.S. case no. 101 of 2022 alleging that complainant – Opp. Party no. 2 abetted the commission of suicide of her husband; whereas it is the case of complainant – Opp. Party no. 2 that as the petitioner no. 1 and others pressurized the husband of complainant – Opp. Party no. 2, to ensure fulfilment of the dowry demand of motorcycle and prohibited the husband of the complainant – Opp. Party no. 2 from continuing conjugal life with the complainant – Opp. Party no. 2, without fulfilment of the said dowry demand and as the husband of the complainant-opposite party no.2, brought her to her matrimonial house without the fulfilment of the said dowry demand, consequent upon filing a petition for the restitution of conjugal life with the complainant and further as the petitioner no. 1 instructed on the fateful day to the husband of complainant – Opp. Party no. 2 to drop the complainant – Opp. Party no. 2 at her parents’ house at Sonipat in the State of Haryana; as the husband of the complainant – Opp. Party no. 2, brought her back from the parents’ house even without fulfilment of the dowry demand, that led to the loss of face of the husband of the complainant – Opp. Party no. 2; which led him to commit suicide. 13. It is next submitted by learned Addl. Party no. 2, brought her back from the parents’ house even without fulfilment of the dowry demand, that led to the loss of face of the husband of the complainant – Opp. Party no. 2; which led him to commit suicide. 13. It is next submitted by learned Addl. PP and learned counsel for the Opp. Party no. 2 that it is common knowledge that greed for property and demand of partition often turns own brothers to be the enemy of each other. Now, the person claiming the property was only a widowed daughter-in-law of the petitioner no. 1 whose husband has already died and the undisputed fact remains that she is living in a room in the house of her paternal uncle at Bokaro Thermal, in the State of Jharkhand after she was not allowed to enter inside her matrimonial house after being released on bail, and her parents are at a far-away place at Sonipat in the State of Haryana. Under such circumstances the act of the petitioners in order to prevent the complainant – Opp. Party no. 2 from demanding any share from the joint property, which she was otherwise entitled in law, committing the alleged offence is quite natural, so this is not a case; where it can be said that the process of the court is used for oblique purpose rather the young widow standing against the mighty petitioners in their den; demanding her share from the property, at a place far away from her father’s place; the petitioners with the greed of denying the sale of the complainant, stooping to the low of even committing the house trespass and vandalizing the room occupied by her to terrorise her by committing criminal intimidation; it is the court which has come to her rescue by setting the law in motion and passing the summoning order; when the undisputed fact remains that the allegation made in the complaint, the statement of the complainant on Solemn Affirmation and the statement of the inquiry witnesses, if are considered to be true in their entirety, the same is sufficient to constitute each of the offences in respect of which learned Magistrate has found the prima facie case. 14. 14. It is further submitted that there is absolutely no doubt regarding Article 141 of the Constitution of India which mandates that law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India shall be binding on all the courts within the territory of India and the law declared by each of judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners is also binding upon this Court; but the fact remains that the ratio of those cases are not applicable to the facts of this case as this is not a case where complainant – Opp. Party no. 2 used judicial proceeding for oblique purpose rather the court came to rescue of the young widow who is fighting for her rights of share of property through her deceased husband from the petitioners living alone in a room in the house of her paternal uncle, far-away place from her parents’ house, hence, it is submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition being without any merit, be dismissed. 15. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the only contention of the petitioners is that the complainant – Opp. Party no. 2 is using the judicial forum for oblique purpose and for wrecking vengeance as the petitioner no. 1 has lodged Giddi P.S. case no. 101 of 2022 alleging therein that she has abetted the suicide of her husband. The complainant was in judicial custody for a considerable period of time in connection with the Giddi P.S. case no. 101 of 2022 and she has been released on bail. 16. The undisputed fact remains that on the date of occurrence, complainant – Opp. Party no. 2 was in her room in the house of her paternal uncle at Bokaro Thermal in the state of Jharkhand; which is a far-away place from her paternal house situated at Sonipat in Haryana. The undisputed fact remains that complainant – Opp. Party no. 2 was claiming the share of joint property being the widow of her deceased husband. The undisputed fact also remains that complainant – Opp. Party no. 2 has not been given her share from the joint properties of the parties and the complainant was not permitted to reside in her matrimonial house, even after being released on bail. 17. 2 was claiming the share of joint property being the widow of her deceased husband. The undisputed fact also remains that complainant – Opp. Party no. 2 has not been given her share from the joint properties of the parties and the complainant was not permitted to reside in her matrimonial house, even after being released on bail. 17. Under such circumstances when the undisputed fact remains that if the allegations made in the complaint, the statement of the complainant on Solemn Affirmation and the statement of the inquiry witnesses are considered to be true in their entirety, then the offences punishable under Sections 448, 427 and 506 of IPC is made out, so the only question to be determined is whether the allegations made in the complaint is for oblique purpose and for wrecking vengeance. 18. Unlike the case of Achin Gupta vs. State of Haryana & Another (supra), this is not a simple case involving the offence punishable under Section 498A and 323 of IPC. It is the common knowledge that the greed and lust for property even separates the siblings from each other, as has rightly been submitted by learned Addl. PP and learned counsel for the complainant – Opp. Party no. 2. 19. Now in this case it is the complainant – Opp. Party no. 2 who is a young widow and claiming her share of joint property from the petitioners and there is admitted acrimony between them. It is the case of the petitioners that the complainant – Opp. Party no. 2 has abetted the suicide of her husband, of course, it is the defence of the complainant – Opp. Party no. 2 that it is the petitioner no. 1 in particular and other petitioners indirectly, pressurized the husband of complainant – Opp. Party no. 2 to ensure the fulfilment of demand of dowry of motorcycle to be brought by complainant – Opp. Party no. 2 from her parents and that forced the husband of the complainant – Opp. Party no. 2 to tell the complainant – Opp. Party no. 2 to go to her parents’ house; as he has brought her to her matrimonial house without fulfilment of the dowry of motorcycle and that led to his committing suicide. 20. Party no. 2 from her parents and that forced the husband of the complainant – Opp. Party no. 2 to tell the complainant – Opp. Party no. 2 to go to her parents’ house; as he has brought her to her matrimonial house without fulfilment of the dowry of motorcycle and that led to his committing suicide. 20. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the materials in the record is not sufficient for this Court to come to the conclusion that the complainant – Opp. Party no. 2 is using the judicial forum for oblique purposes and for wrecking vengeance; which is the sole ground urged upon by the petitioners, to quash the entire criminal proceeding in exercise of its power under Section 482 of CrPC, at this nascent stage, when only the summoning order has been passed and this is not a fit case where the category 7 of paragraph 102 of the case of Haryana & Ors. vs. Bhajan Lal and Others (supra) is to be applied; as in the considered opinion of this Court, the materials are inadequate to bring on this case under the category 7 of para 102 of the case of Haryana & Ors. vs. Bhajan Lal and Others (supra). 21. So far as the judgment in the case of the Md. Wajid and Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (supra) is concerned, this case does not involve any criminal antecedent of either of the parties, hence, this Court is of the considered view that the ratio of that judgment is not applicable to the facts of this case. 22. So far as the judgment in the case of M/s JM Laboratories and Others vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another (supra) is concerned, this Court after going through the materials in the records, finds that the summoning order passed by learned Magistrate is a speaking order, hence, the ratio of that judgment is not applicable to the facts of this case. 23. So far as the judgment in the case of Anukul Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (supra) is concerned, this is not a case where the machinery of the criminal law was permitted for settling civil disputes or for wrecking vengeance, hence the ratio of that judgment is not applicable to the facts of this case. 24. 23. So far as the judgment in the case of Anukul Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (supra) is concerned, this is not a case where the machinery of the criminal law was permitted for settling civil disputes or for wrecking vengeance, hence the ratio of that judgment is not applicable to the facts of this case. 24. So far as the judgment in the case of B.N. John vs. State of U.P. and Anr. (supra) is concerned, unlike the facts of that case, where the FIR was registered in respect of the non-cognizable offence punishable under Section 186 of IPC, that too without following the due process as contemplated under the provisions of law, this is a case based under complaint petition but not FIR, so the ratio of B.N. John vs. State of U.P. and Anr. (supra), in the considered opinion of this Court, is also not applicable to the facts of this case. 25. So far as the judgment in the case of Gulam Mustafa vs. The State of Karnataka and Another (supra) is concerned, the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of S.W. Palanitkar vs. State of Bihar (supra) is no doubt a settled principle of law; but as already indicated in the foregoing paragraphs of this judgment, this Court do not find any material to arrive at the conclusion that the judicial forum of court is being utilized for any oblique motive, hence, in the considered opinion of this Court, that judgment is also not applicable to the facts of this case. 26. Because of the discussions made above, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case, where the prayers of the petitioners are to be acceded to in exercise of the power under Section 482 of CrPC. 27. Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition being without any merit is dismissed.