JUDGMENT 1. - The instant misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioners seeking quashing of the F.I.R. No. 229/2011 registered at the Police Station Sagwara, District Dungarpur for the offence under Section 498A of the I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. The petitioners No. 1 to 4 are the married sisters-in-law of the complainant/respondent No. 2 Smt. Sonam Patel and the petitioner No. 5 is said to be her Mamisasur. The respondent No. 2 complainant was married with Pradeep Patel on 7.12.1988 . Thereafter, she started residing with her husband in the matrimonial home at Sagwara. The complainant submitted a written report to the Superintendent of police, Dungarpur on 4.8.2011 impleading 9 persons including the petitioners herein and some other persons as accused. As per the allegations levelled in the F.I.R., the petitioners and the co-accused, started harassing and humiliating the complainant on count of demand of dowry soon after her marriage. It was also alleged that the complainant was unable to accede to the demands of the accused because of the poor condition of her father. It was also alleged that when her husband sided with her, he was also ill-treated and resultantly he was forced to leave the ancestral home and proceeded to Kuwait for earning his livelihood. The complainant alleged that no sooner her husband left for Kuwait, the accused conspired against her and forcibly turned her out of the matrimonial home. She was forced to live at her father's house. Her husband returned back from Kuwait and took her back to the ancestral home at Sagwara. She further alleged that her husband went to Libya a few months prior to the filing of the F.I.R. As soon as her husband left for Libya, she was again turned out of the house and was not even allowed to attend the last rites of her father-in-law, who expired on 28.7.2010. Upon being turned out of the house, informed her husband at Libya over telephone. He in turn informed the Superintendent of Police, Dungapur. Th6 Police intervened but to no avail. Her husband had to return back from Libya on count of civil unrest in that country. They were not allowed to live peacefully in the matrimonial home. She alleged that her two brothers-in-law (Jeths) were bent upon to turn them out of family home. He in turn informed the Superintendent of Police, Dungapur. Th6 Police intervened but to no avail. Her husband had to return back from Libya on count of civil unrest in that country. They were not allowed to live peacefully in the matrimonial home. She alleged that her two brothers-in-law (Jeths) were bent upon to turn them out of family home. She further alleged that on 16.7.2011 the accused Balkrishna and his wife Daksha (Jeth and Jethani) abused the complainant and her husband and damaged his office. Her husband filed a report in this regard at the Police Station Sagwara. Being enraged by the filing of the F.I.R., her Jeth Balkrishna collected all the accused persons and started hatching a conspiracy against the complainant and her husband. Sh. Pradeep the complainant's brother-in-law sided with her husband Prakash on which he too was assaulted. On 16.7.2011, her brother-in-law Harish his wife Mani alongwith Balkrishna and Daksha as well a rest of the accused persons assaulted the complainant and her husband and turned them out of the house. She went to the house of Gayatri (her husband's cousin) but Harish and his wife persued and assaulted them there also. Her husband became unconscious because of the assault. The complainant further illeged that she was threatened by the accused persons, not to take any action are else she would face dire consequences. For the incident of 16.7.2011, Prakash odged an F.I.R. against numerous persons wherein, after investigation, Police bled a charge-sheet against Balkrishna, Harish and Sukhi for the offences under Sections 323, 324 and 34 of the I.P.C. It was also alleged that Harish also filed an F.I.R. No. 204/2011 against Pradeep and Prakash. 3. The petitioners No. 1 to 4, who the married sisters of Prakash and petitioner No. 5, who is the Mama of Prakash and who have been implicated in Che F.I.R. No. 229/2011 filed by Smt. Sonam Patel, have now approached this Court by way of the instant misc. petition seeking quashing of the F.I.R. impugned. 4. Notice of this petition was issued to the respondent No. 2 but nobody appeared on her behalf. 5. This Court directed the Investigating Officer to submit a factual report after a comparative analysis of the various F.I.Rs. registered inter se between the parties. However, the Investigating Officer has not given any conclusive report regarding the involvement of the petitioners in this case. 6. 5. This Court directed the Investigating Officer to submit a factual report after a comparative analysis of the various F.I.Rs. registered inter se between the parties. However, the Investigating Officer has not given any conclusive report regarding the involvement of the petitioners in this case. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. Property disputed were going on inter se between the complainant, her husband and the husband's [brothers. Owing to rival claims over joint family property, cross F.I.Rs. were filed between the brothers. He submitted that the petitioners have been implicated falsely in the case just in order to pressurise the other brothers, who are opposed to Pradeep and Prakash in the dispute over ancestral family property. Learned counsel submitted that had there been an iota of truth in the allegations regarding the first informant having been harassed or humiliated on count of bringing less dowry, then these facts wouid have been mentioned in the F.I.R. No. 203/2011 filed by Prakash at the Police Station Sagwara on 16.7.2011. Learned counsel submitted that as the complainant is living happily with her husband, it cannot be accepted that other family member could demand dowry from her. Learned counsel submitted that a plain and simple property dispute has been converted into a mala fide prosecution by misusing the provisions of Section 498A I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. He thus prayed that the F.I.R. impugned deserves to be quashed qua the petitioners. 7. Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the bar. Perused the F.I.R. impugned, the other F.I.Rs. filed inter se between the parties and the case diary. 8. From a perusal of the case diary, it is apparent on the face of record that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. The petitioners No. 1 to 4 are the married sisters of the first informant's husband and the petitioner No. 5 is his maternal uncle. Property disputes were going on between Pradeep and his brothers with rival claims regarding right to possession and reside in the ancestral property. As the petitioners No. 1 to 4 are the daughters of late Shri Raghunathji Patel, obviously they too would be entitled to lay claim for a share in the father's property. Property disputes were going on between Pradeep and his brothers with rival claims regarding right to possession and reside in the ancestral property. As the petitioners No. 1 to 4 are the daughters of late Shri Raghunathji Patel, obviously they too would be entitled to lay claim for a share in the father's property. The complainant and her husband are already battling with the brothers over the right to the ancestral property and thus, an apprehension that the petitioners No. 1 to 4 too would claim a share in the property would be a sufficient reason to involve them falsely in a case of dowry. Thus, the reason of the petitioners implication in this case is writ large on the face of the record. It does not stand to reason that the husband is siding and hands in glove with the wife and yet his family members would dare to demand dowry from the wife. The F.I.R. impugned the face of it discloses overtones of a right to reside in the property and nothing beyond. Thus, the allegations regarding the accused-petitioners having demanded dowry from the complainant and having treated cruelly to her for that reason cannot be accepted on the face of the record. 9. In wake of the above discussion, their Court has no hesitation in holding that the continuance of the proceedings of the F.I.R. impugned against the petitioners for the offences under Section 498A I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act amounts to an abuse of the process of law. In this view of the matter, the misc. petition deserves acceptance. 10. Resultantly the misc. petition is allowed. The F.I.R. No. 229/2011 registered at the Police Station Sagwara, District Dungarpur and all the subsequent proceedings sought to be taken against the petitioners are hereby quashed. However, the investigation of the F.I.R. qua the remaining accused shall continue. Stay petition is also disposed of.Petition allowed. *******