JUDGMENT Ajai Lamba, J. (Oral):-This petition under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, seeks quashing of FIR No.237 dated 23.8.2007 under Section 498-A, Indian Penal Code, Police Station, Phillaur, District Jalandhar (Annexure P- 1) and subsequent proceedings. 2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Surinder Kaur lodged the FIR only because she was aggrieved by the conduct of her husband-Shital Ram, who has been living in Dubai. The petitioner is sister-in-law (Jethani) of the complainant, having separate residence, which fact stands established on the record. Continuance of proceedings would result in abuse of process of court in so much as the petitioner has been implicated only because she happens to be related to the husband of the complainant. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent-State, on instructions from HC Kulwinder Singh, has admitted that indeed the petitioner has a different and separate residence from the matrimonial home of Surinder Kaur. This has been so stated in para-5 of the reply as well. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has further stated that other than the statement of the complainant, there is no other material so as to show harassment to the complainant at the hands of the petitioner. 5. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the available record. 6. In the FIR, there are general and omnibus allegations of giving beatings to the complainant against all the accused including the petitioner. No complaint was ever made. This aspect assumes importance because the date of marriage of the complainant with Shital Ram is 18.12.1998 whereas the FIR has been lodged on 23.8.2007. There being no documentary evidence or medico-legal report to indicate beatings, the allegation against the petitioner in this regard has to be ignored, particularly considering the admitted fact that the petitioner has a separate residence, kitchen, household and family. 7. I have also taken note of the fact that in the FIR itself, it has been stated by the complainant that her husband had left for Dubai with a promise that he would return in one or two years. The husband did not come back. He was not sending money to support his wife-complainant. Money, rather, was being sent to the mother-in-law of the complainant. In view of these circumstances, the complainant was facing hardship. 8. The husband did not come back. He was not sending money to support his wife-complainant. Money, rather, was being sent to the mother-in-law of the complainant. In view of these circumstances, the complainant was facing hardship. 8. This being the admitted position, it becomes evident that being aggrieved and agitated, the entire family including the petitioner, has been involved. 9. The FIR further narrates that in the year 2001, the complainant was thrown out of the matrimonial home. The petitioner, not being a part of the matrimonial home, cannot be ascribed this role. 10. Considering the fact that there are no specific allegations which have been substantiated by virtue of any material that can be translated into legal evidence; the petitioner is, admittedly, living in a separate home; the complainant is aggrieved by the conduct of her husband who left for Dubai and has not sent any money to support the complainant; the FIR having been lodged after a gap of 9 years from the date of marriage of the complainant and 6 years from the time when she was turned out of the matrimonial home and there being no complaint in the intervening period, the petition is allowed. FIR No.237 dated 23.8.2007 under Section 498-A, Indian Penal Code, Police Station, Phillaur, District Jalandhar (Annexure P-1) and subsequent proceedings are quashed. ----------------