JUDGMENT Z. A. HAQ, J. :- Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. 3. The applicants have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for quashing of the complaint filed by the non-applicant under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. 4. With the assistance of the learned Advocates for the applicants and non-applicant, we have gone through the complaint tiled by the non-applicant before the Magistrate. There are no averments in the complaint which make out any offence against the applicant nos. 2, 3 and 4. The only allegation against the applicant nos. 2, 3 and 4 is that a demand was made by them and pursuant to the demand, the parents of the non-applicant have given the items as stated in paragraph no.2 of the complaint. 5. Shri Vyas, learned Advocate for the non-applicant, has submitted that the allegations made in paragraph no.3 against the applicants constitute domestic violence as contemplated by Section 3(b) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005. However, we find that the non-applicant has not even pleaded that there was harassment or harm or injuries or anything which endangered her to coerce her to fulfill the demand, which arc the necessary ingredients. 6. Shri Vyas, the learned Advocate for the non-applicant has further submitted that in paragraph no.3 of the complaint it is stated that the applicant nos.2, 3 and 4 had been co-operating with the applicant no. 1 for harassing the non-applicant. We find that the allegations made against applicant nos.2. 3 and 4 are vague and do not constitute domestic violence as contemplated by the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The averments prima facie, even if taken at its face value, do not constitute the offence. 7. In view of the above, we find that the continuation of the complaint as filed by the non-applicant against applicant nos.2, 3 and 4 is abuse or the process of law and therefore, the complaint as filed against the applicant nos.2, 3 and 4 has to be quashed. As far as the complaint against applicant no.1 is concerned, we find that there are prima facie allegations and material in the complaint. As far as the complaint against applicant no.1 is concerned, we find that there are prima facie allegations and material in the complaint. Hence, it cannot he quashed in exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 8. In view of the above, the application is partly allowed. The complaint filed against the applicant nos. 2, 3 and 4 under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is quashed. The complaint as against the applicant no.1 to continue before the learned Magistrate. In the circumstances, parties to bear their own costs. Application partly allowed.