Judgment S.R. Brahmbhatt, J.—Heard learned APP Shri KP Raval for Respondent No. 2 State. 1. The petitioners, who have been named as accused in M. Case No. 13 of 2003 filed by Respondent No. 1 wife, filed against her husband and in-laws alleging offence punishable under Section 498-A, 323, 420 read with Section 114 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3 & 4 of The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, have approached this Court under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, seeking quashing of the complaint arising there from on the grounds that the Respondent No. 1 the complainant has filed this complaint by abusing the process of law as the complaint on the face of it does not disclose any offence which is alleged to have been committed by the present petitioners. 2. Respondent No. 1 original complainant happened to be wife of accused Dilip Vasantlal Mehta, who has been named as accused No. 1 and daughter-in-law of present petitioners. Petitioner No. 1 happens to be father-in-law aged about 80 years and mother-in-law aged about 78 years. M. Case No. 13/2003 registered on 30/12/2003 contains allegations, the gist whereof could be set out as under. The complainant has stated that she married accused No. 1, 16 years ago as per the rituals of Hindu religion and the said marriage is also registered before the Registrar. She had started her family life with accused No. 1 husband and dowry was given to accused No. 1 husband given by her parents. She gave birth to a child on 17/10/1987 at Bhavnagar and thereafter another child was born on 20/9/1995. Accused husband is alleged to have been ill-treating the wife and instigation was provided by present petitioners / in-laws and the Respondent No. 1 could not tolerate the torture she had to leave the premises and take shelter with her parents. The present complaint therefore is filed for the offences alleged in the memo of the complaint. Said M. Case has resulted into registration of criminal inquiry case No. 211 of 2003 against all the three accused. This Court while issuing notice on 14/12/2006 (Coram: K.S. Jhaveri, J.) passed following order. “Rule. In view of the decision of V. Abraham vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai reported in 2004 SCC 100 , further proceedings of this case are stayed.” Thus the proceedings have been stayed. 3. This Court while issuing notice on 14/12/2006 (Coram: K.S. Jhaveri, J.) passed following order. “Rule. In view of the decision of V. Abraham vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai reported in 2004 SCC 100 , further proceedings of this case are stayed.” Thus the proceedings have been stayed. 3. This Court has perused the complaint very closely and heard learned APP for Respondent No. 2 State. Though served non appears for Respondent No. 1- complainant. Close reading of the entire complaint indicate that baring at three places nowhere else the complainant has made any allegation against the present petitioners, i.e. in-laws of the complainant. The three places where the allegations are made also do not indicate any specific incident which would inspire confidence of it being genuine. On the contrary there are factors which are required to be considered and which are likely to go against the complainant in the criminal complaint so far as the present petition is concerned needs to be enumerated as under. 3.1. The complaint as narrated by the complainant did not disclose any offence which is said to have been committed by the present petitioners. Narration of the complaint does not indicate any overt act on the part of the present petitioners, except the action accused No. 1 husband to be investigated. 3.2. The fact that the complainant had 16 long years of marriage span with the husband and out of their wedlock when two issues have been born, then this factor also needs to be appreciated in its proper perspective, especially when the complaint lacks appropriate allegations which could be said to be capable of making out any ingredients so far the offence alleged in the complaint are concerned. 3.3. The entire tenor of the complaint is indicative that the complainant is in fact aggrieved by the alleged ill-treatment by the husband and without making any specific allegation of any incident just roped-in the in-laws also in the complaint. 3.4. The allegations, especially the allegation disclosing existence of ingredients against present petitioners, complaint cannot be permitted to be maintained against present petitioners. Or else it would amount to misuse of the process so far as the present petitioners are concerned. 4. 3.4. The allegations, especially the allegation disclosing existence of ingredients against present petitioners, complaint cannot be permitted to be maintained against present petitioners. Or else it would amount to misuse of the process so far as the present petitioners are concerned. 4. In view of the aforesaid observations, and in view of the fact that the complaint itself is not containing any specific allegation and learned APP could not show any other material which would have resulted in to investigation indicative of involvement of present petitioners in the commission of offence, this Court is of the view that the complaint is required to be quashed qua the present petitioners. 5. Accordingly, the complaint in question impugned in this proceedings is quashed, qua the present petitioners. It shall continue so far as the husband is concerned. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent. P P P P P