1. These two petitions under Section 561-A Cr. P. C. registered as 561-A 90/2009 and 561-A 80/2009 assail case FIR No. 47/2009, P/S Bhadarwah under Section 498 -A/109 RPC and deserves to be taken up together. 561-A 90/2009 Petitioners 1 and 2 are parents of petitioner no. 3. Respondent no. 2 is legally wedded wife of petitioner no. 3. The marriage between petitioner no. 3 and respon­dent no. 2 solemnised in November 2003, appears to have run into rough weather forcing the parties to live separately and also resulting in litigation between the parties. The parties are at present entangled in litigation over guardianship and custody of their only son. Respondent no. 2 has filed an application under Section 488 Cr. P. C. on behalf of her minor son against petitioner no. 3. Petitioner no. 3 has also filed a petition under section 11 Hindu Marriage Act before learned Principal District Judge, Bhadarwah seeking a declaration declaring the marriage between petitioner no. 3 and respondent no. 2 as void. Respondent no. 2 on 11.5.2009 appears to have lodged a written report with Police Station Bhadarwah alleging therein that the petitioners herein on 6th May 2009 threw out respondent no. 2 from her marital home making dowry demands and warned respondent no. 2 not to step in her marital home unless and until she satisfies their dowry demand. The report ; prompted P/S Bhadarwah to register case FIR no. 47/2009 under section 498/109 RPC. 2. The petitioners through medium of instant petition under section 561-A Cr. P. C. seek quashment of FIR no. 47/09 under section 498/109 RPC in exercise of inherent powers vested in the court. 3. Briefly stated, petitioners' case is that the allegations set out in the First Information Report are false, and even when taken on their face value do not amount to commission of offence under section 498-A RPC. It is averred that respondent no. 2 has deserted petitioner no. 3 since March 2007 and is permanently residing in Jammu in connection with her duties. Respondent no. 2, it is pleaded, is a constable in J&K Armed Police, 12th Battalion stationed at Jammu and has persuaded her colleagues in the Police Department posted at P/S Bhadarwah to register a false and frivolous case against the petitioners. 3 since March 2007 and is permanently residing in Jammu in connection with her duties. Respondent no. 2, it is pleaded, is a constable in J&K Armed Police, 12th Battalion stationed at Jammu and has persuaded her colleagues in the Police Department posted at P/S Bhadarwah to register a false and frivolous case against the petitioners. It is pointed out that the parties are engaged in multiple litigation arising out of their matrimonial relations since 2007 and neither there was any occasion for respondent no. 2 to come to her marital home nor any reason for the petitioners to throw her out and demand dowry six years after the marriage was solemnized. Case FIR no. 47/09 and investigation emanating there-from according to petitioners amounts to abuse of process of the law and miscarriage of justice and is intended to harass the petitioners and force a compromise on them. 4. Heard and considered. 5. The High Court under Section 561-A Cr. P. C. is to exercise inherent powers (1) to give effect to an order under code, (2) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and (3) to otherwise secure ends of justice. The inherent jurisdiction vested in the High Court under Section 561-A Cr. P. C. is wide and because of its plenitude it is to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution. It is pertinent to point out that the authority of the court exists in advancement of justice and if any order or proceedings are bound to abuse the authority or result in injustice, the court is not powerless to prevent the abuse. The inherent powers are to be exercised where initiation or continuance of any proceedings results in injustice and quashing of the proceedings would serve the ends of justice. The Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bajan lal, AIR 1992 SC 602 has categorized tie cases where the High Court may exercise its inherent powers to prevent abuse of process of court and secure the ends of justice. In terms of aforementioned judgment the criminal proceedings may be quashed where: (I) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides 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. 6. In terms of aforementioned judgment the criminal proceedings may be quashed where: (I) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides 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. 6. In the present case the material available on the file reveals that the parties soon after their marriage in November 2003 were caught in disputes and disagree­ments resulting in their separation. The parties are involved in litigation before different courts at Bhadarwah and Jammu. Respondent no. 2 has filed an applica­tion under Section 488 Cr. P. C. on behalf of the minor son against petitioner no. 3 and petitioner no. 3 in turn has filed a petition under section 11 Hindu Marriage Act in the court of Principal District Judge, Bhadarwah. Respondent no. 2, a police constable, more than six years after her marriage with petitioner no. 3, has lodged a complaint with P/S Bhadarwah against the petitioners and Smt. Sudesha Devi "and Smt. Pringla Devi alleging therein that she was being harassed with a view to coerce here to meet unlawful dowry demands made by the accused. The demand for dowry is said to have been made on 6th May 2009 when respondent no. 2 was allegedly thrown out from here marital house by the petitioners and their relatives threatening her that she would not be allowed to enter her marital home unless and until demands were met. The material on the file reveals that respondent no. 2 and petitioner no. 3 have been living separately from March 2007. Respondent no. 2, as already indicated, has filed an application under section 488 Cr. P. C. against petitioner no. 3 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Jammu, alleging therein that respondent no. 2 was thrown out by petitioner no. 3 from his residential house forcing respondent no. 2 to shift Jammu and reside with her father at Ploura, Jammu. Petitioner no. 3 has on 6th September 2007 filed petition under Guardian Wards Act for custody of the minor child whom the respondent no. 2 is said to have taken away to Jammu. 2 was thrown out by petitioner no. 3 from his residential house forcing respondent no. 2 to shift Jammu and reside with her father at Ploura, Jammu. Petitioner no. 3 has on 6th September 2007 filed petition under Guardian Wards Act for custody of the minor child whom the respondent no. 2 is said to have taken away to Jammu. The facts emerging from the record available on the file thus rule out the alleged occurrence and indicate that the proceedings have been initiated for mala fide reasons and to use these as a tool to force a compromise on the petitioners. It is a fact of common knowledge that proceedings under section 498-A are initiated in some cases as a weapon of harassment. The Supreme Court in Prceti Gupta and another v. State of Jharkhand and another, 2010 Criminal Law Journal, 4303 taking notice of misuse of section 498-A has asked the legislators to give a serious re-look to the provision. The Supreme Court while holding that the tendency of implicating husband and all his relations is not uncommon and that to find truth is a Herculean task and even after the conclusion of the criminal trial it is difficult to ascertain the real truth, observed: "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. The allegations of harassment of husband's close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complaint are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection. Experience reveals that long and protected criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony and bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. 7. The Supreme Court further observed: "We would like to observe that a serious re-look of the entire provision is warranted by the legislation. It is also a matter of common knowledge that exaggerated versions of the incident are reflected in a large number of dbmplaints. The tendency of over implication is also ref lee ted in a very large number of cases. 8. The criminal trials lead to immense sufferings for all concerned. Even ultimate acquittal in the trial may also not be able to wipe out the deep scars of suffering of ignominy. The tendency of over implication is also ref lee ted in a very large number of cases. 8. The criminal trials lead to immense sufferings for all concerned. Even ultimate acquittal in the trial may also not be able to wipe out the deep scars of suffering of ignominy. Unfortunately a large number of these complaints have not only flooded the courts but also have led to enormous social unrest affecting peace, harmony and happiness of the society. It is high time that the legislature must take into consideration the pragmatic realities and make suitable changes in the existing law. It is imperative for the legislature to take into consideration the informed public opinion and the pragmatic realities in consideration and make necessary changes in the relevant provisions of the law." 9. The facts emerging from the available record in the present case, as already pointed out, reveal that the FIR no. 47/09 has been registered for mala fide reasons and ulterior motives to harass the petitioners and expose them to criminal proceed­ings for personal grudge. The present case thus squarely falls within the ambit of guidelines laid down in Bajan Lai's case (supra) and the FIR as also the proceeding emanating there-from are liable to be quashed. 561-A No. 80/2009 Smt. Saroj Bala wife of Seshpal Singh resident of Nakshari - respondent no. 2 herein, appears to have on 11.5.2009 lodged a written report with P/S Badarwah alleging therein that her husband and his parents with the aid and assistance of Ms. Sudesha Devi daughter of Jittam Singh and Pringla Devi wife of Jittam Sing residents of village Manthala tehsil Bhadarwah -present petitioners- on 6th May 2009 threw out the respondent no. 2 from her marital home making demand for dowry and threatening respondent no. 2 that she would not be allowed to step in her matrimonial life unless and until she satisfies the demand for dowry over and above, she had brought to her in-laws' house at the time of her marriage. The report prompted P/S Bhadarwah to register a case FIR no. 47/09 under Section 498/109 RFC against the present petitioners as also husband and parents in law of the respondent no. 2. 10. The petitioners through the medium of instant petition under section 561-A cr. P. C. seek quashment of FIR no. The report prompted P/S Bhadarwah to register a case FIR no. 47/09 under Section 498/109 RFC against the present petitioners as also husband and parents in law of the respondent no. 2. 10. The petitioners through the medium of instant petition under section 561-A cr. P. C. seek quashment of FIR no. 47/09 under section 498/109 RFC in exercise of inherent powers vested in the court, on the ground that the petitioners are not related to the husband of respondent no. 2 and thus are not in a position to demand dowry from respondent no. 2. It is insisted that FIR even when taken on its face value does not disclose commission of any offence against the petitioners. It is insisted that even if it is assumed that petitioner no. 1 has friendly relations with husband of respondent no. 2 the petitioner or her mother/petitioner no. 2 cannot be roped in an offence under section 498-A RFC. The petitioners' case is that they do not fall within the definition of "relative" and thus cannot be held responsible for making dowry demands. Case FIR no. 47/09 according to the petitioners amounts to abuse of process of law and miscarriage of justice. The petitioners seek quashment of FIR in exercise of inherent powers Section561-A Cr. P. C. 11. Heard and considered. 12. The petitioners admittedly are not related to the husband of respondent no. 2. Respondent no. 2 suspects that her husband is involved in an affair with petitioner no. 1 and plans to marry petitioner no. 1 once he is in a position to get divorce or otherwise come out of the marital relationship with respondent no. 2. Section 498-A RFC, it may be recalled, makes a reference to the husband or the relative of the husband of the woman. It is thus the "relative of the husband" who can be roped in of course on sufficient proof and for valid reasons in an offence under section 498-A RFC. The petitioners admittedly having no relationship with the husband of respondent no. 2 cannot be implicated in an offence under section 498-A RPC. It has been held in U. Survetha v. State 1009 Criminal Law Journal, 2974 that the term "relative" must be assigned the meaning as is commonly understood. The petitioners admittedly having no relationship with the husband of respondent no. 2 cannot be implicated in an offence under section 498-A RPC. It has been held in U. Survetha v. State 1009 Criminal Law Journal, 2974 that the term "relative" must be assigned the meaning as is commonly understood. The term "relative" according to the Supreme Court would ordinarily include a person related by blood, marriage or adoption i.e. father, mother, husband or wife, son daughter, brother, sister, nephew or niece, grandson or grand-daughter of an individual or the spouse of any person. It has been held that by no stretch of imagination a girl friend or even a concubine of the husband in an etymological sense would be a "relative." In view of the settled legal position the petitioner no. 1, who admittedly is not a relation of husband of respondent no. 2 but suspected to be his girlfriend and the petitioner no. 2- mother of petitioner no. 1- cannot be held to be "relative" of the husband of the respondent no. 2 so as to be roped in with the husband of the respondent no. 2 and his relations under an offence under section 498-A RFC. 13. The above aspect of the case in addition to the grounds discussed while dealing with 561-A 90/2009 call for exercise of inherent powers u/s 561-A Cr. P. C. 14. For the reasons discussed above, the FIR no. 47/09 amounts to abuse of the process of law and the proceedings emanating there-from are likely to cause miscarriage of justice and to prevent such an abuse and miscarriage of justice, exercise of inherent powers is called for. 15. The petitions are accordingly allowed and the FIR no. 47/09 as also the proceedings emanating there-from are quashed.