JUDGMENT S.B. Shukre, J. 1. By this petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the F.I.R. being C.R. No.265/2012 registered against them at police station, Nigdi, Pune and the criminal proceedings initiated against them as a result of the said F.I.R. 2. On the last date of hearing i.e. 3rd July, 2013, learned counsel for petitioner Nos.1 & 2, upon instructions, made a statement that these petitioners would apply to the trial Court for seeking their discharge from the case and submitted his argument seeking quashing of the F.I.R. and consequently, the criminal proceedings as against the petitioner No.3 only. Accordingly, Rule was issued and petition, with the consent of parties, was heard finally at the stage of admission, as noted in our order passed on 3rd July, 2013. 3. Heard Shri Satyavrat Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mrs. Sonawane, learned A.P.P. for the State and Mr. Vijay Killedar, learned counsel for the respondent No.3. 4. The marriage of respondent No.3 was solemnized with one Girish Chintaman Chakradev, the son of petitioner Nos.1 & 2 and brother of petitioner No.3 on 28th January, 2012 and thereafter, respondent No.3 started co-habiting with Girish at Nigdi, Pune. In the matrimonial house along with Girish and respondent No.2, petitioner Nos.1 & 2 also used to reside. Soon after the marriage, it is alleged, Girish started harassing respondent No.2. It has been alleged by the respondent No.2 that Girish used to demand from her an amount of Rs.25 lakhs to enable him to undertake a journey to Germany and upon failure of the respondent No.2 to arrange for funds, he used to subject her to beating and humiliation. It has also been alleged by respondent No.2 that her husband Girish was a divorcee, but this fact was suppressed by him from her at the time of her marriage. According to the respondent No.2, petitioner Nos.1 & 2 also used to take sides with her husband Girish in his abusive conduct towards her. On 2nd August, 2012, it is alleged, she was forced to leave her matrimonial house by her husband and, therefore, she came to her maternal place. On 5th October, 2012, she lodged a complaint against the petitioners with police station, Nigdi, Pune narrating the ill-treatment and harassment meted out to her by her husband and the petitioners. 5. On 2nd August, 2012, it is alleged, she was forced to leave her matrimonial house by her husband and, therefore, she came to her maternal place. On 5th October, 2012, she lodged a complaint against the petitioners with police station, Nigdi, Pune narrating the ill-treatment and harassment meted out to her by her husband and the petitioners. 5. On the basis of this complaint, police station, Nigdi registered F.I.R. being Crime No.265/2012 for offences punishable under Sections 420, 498(A), 504, 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code against all petitioners and carried out investigation. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner No.3 has submitted that there is not even a whisper of allegation against the petitioner No.3 in the complaint filed with police station, Nigdi by respondent No.2. He has further submitted that whatever allegations are there, they are all against the husband of the respondent No.2 and to an extent against petitioner Nos.1 & 2. Therefore, learned counsel argues that there was no reason for the police station, Nigdi to have registered any crime against the petitioner No.3 and that the registration of the aforesaid offences by the police only illustrates non application of mind on their part. He further submits that it is a settled law that where the uncontroverted allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence, High Court can, in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, quash the F.I.R. and prevent the abuse of process of law. He places his reliance upon the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Harayana & Ors. V/s. Ch. Bhajan Lal Ors. reportedin 1992 CRI. L.J. 527. 7. Learned A.P.P. for the State, so also learned counsel for the respondent No.2, in so far as the submissions canvassed before us on behalf of the petitioner No.3 are concerned, could not do much to persuade us to disagree with the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner No.3. V/s. Ch. Bhajan Lal Ors. reportedin 1992 CRI. L.J. 527. 7. Learned A.P.P. for the State, so also learned counsel for the respondent No.2, in so far as the submissions canvassed before us on behalf of the petitioner No.3 are concerned, could not do much to persuade us to disagree with the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner No.3. With the assistance of learned counsel for the petitioner No.3, learned A.P.P. for the State and also learned counsel for the respondent No.2, we have carefully gone through the complaint of the respondent No.2 and all the statements of witnesses recorded by Investigating Officer and it is seen that neither the complaint nor the statements disclose prima facie commission of any offence by petitioner No.3. 8. It is pertinent to note here that the police station, Nigdi has already filed a charge-sheet against all the petitioners and also Girish, the husband of the respondent No.2 before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pimpri, Pune on 17th January, 2013. A copy of the final report under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code consisting of 36 pages made available to us, has been taken on record and marked 'X' collectively for identification. In fact, learned A.P.P. for the State as well as learned counsel for the respondent No.2 have conceded that nowhere in the complaint and also in the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, are seen the allegations of cruelty or harassment having been made against petitioner No.3 by the respondent No.2. In the last but one paragraph of the complaint lodged by the respondent No.2 against the petitioners, the reason for lodging of complaint against the petitioner No.3 in particular has been stated. The reason is that since her husband had treated her with cruelty and also cheated on her by suppressing from her the fact of his divorce from his first wife that she was filing the complaint against her husband and in-laws, including petitioner No.3. So, in this paragraph also, what we find are only the allegations against the husband of the respondent No.2 and not against the petitioner No.3. 9. So, in this paragraph also, what we find are only the allegations against the husband of the respondent No.2 and not against the petitioner No.3. 9. In view of the above referred discussion, we find ourselves in complete agreement with learned counsel for the petitioner No.3 when he submits that the registration of offences vide F.I.R. being Crime No.265/2012 against the petitioner No.3 was an act emanating from non application of mind on the part of the concerned officer of police station, Nigdi, not justified in law. Even if all the contentions and allegations in the complaint as well as in the statements of witnesses filed along with the charge-sheet are taken to be correct, still no offence whatsoever is made out against the petitioner No.3. When the allegations in the complaint do not disclose prima facie commission of any offence and, there is no further evidence collected disclosing any offence, no F.I.R. can be registered. The law in this regard is well settled. In the case of Bhajan Lal (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that whenever uncontroverted allegations in the F.I.R. and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused, the High Court would be justified in interfering in the proceedings relating to cognizable offence to prevent the abuse of process of law or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, although this power must be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of the rare cases. As already discussed above, in the instant case, there is no material disclosing prima facie commission of any offence by petitioner No.3. Even if the allegations made against petitioner No.3 are taken at their face value, nothing inculpatory is made out against her and, therefore, the continuance of any criminal proceedings instituted on the basis of the crime registered against her would be an abuse of process of Court, especially when there is in this case a foregone conclusion that any trial based on such material must result in acquittal of petitioner No.3. In these circumstances, we are convinced that this is a fit case wherein this court must exercise its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 10. In these circumstances, we are convinced that this is a fit case wherein this court must exercise its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 10. The result is that, the petition of the petitioner No.3 succeeds. The F.I.R. being Crime No.265/2012 is hereby quashed and set aside, so also the criminal proceedings instituted on the basis thereof. As regards petitioner Nos.1 & 2, the petition is disposed of in terms of order of this Court dated 3rd July, 2013. 11. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.