1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. 28179-M of 2009 Date of Decision: 8.10.2009 *** Manjit Kaur & Ors. .. Petitioners Vs. Priyanka .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present:- Mr. Saloni Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The petitioners are seeking quashing of complaint No. 160 dated 1.9.2008 pending before learned SDJM, Balachaur as also the consequent proceedings therein. In the impugned complaint, the petitioners and Kulwinder, the husband of complainant, have been summoned for the offences under Sections 406, 498-A IPC. The present petitioners are sister-in-law, mother-in-law, father- in-law and brother-in-law respectively of the complainant while her husband is stated to be residing abroad and presently he is Dubai. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that they have nothing to do with the alleged offence and it is general tendency to rope in all the family members of the husband, in case of matrimonial dispute. Having considered the allegations leveled in the complaint, this Court is of the considered view that no interference in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is made out to quash the impugned complaint at the very threshold. There is no dispute that no hard and fast rule can be laid down to the cases in which the High Court can exercise its jurisdiction of quashing of the criminal proceedings, but the same has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution and has only to be exercised in 2 rarest and exceptional cases, which is lacking in this case. Dismissed. However, if so advised the petitioners may avail permissible remedy of filing revision before the Court below against the summoning order. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE October 8,2009 Jiten