JUDGMENT : A.B. Chaudhari, J. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of Shri Dhengale, learned Counsel for applicant, and Ms. Mehta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent no.1. The Counsel for respondent no.2 is absent even on the second call. 2. Following is the prayer clause (i) in the present criminal application: "(i) quash and set aside the FIR vide Crime No.351/2014 dated 11/12/2014 registered by the respondent Police Station, City Kotwali, Amravati, District Amravati against the applicant for the offences punishable under Section 498-A, 504, 323 r/w 34 of I.P.C. (Annexure-1)." 3. Shri Dhengale, learned Counsel for the applicant, submits that applicant is father-in-law of respondent no.2 and perusal of the first information report does not show any specific allegation against him at all. According to learned Counsel, there are serious allegations against son of the applicant, namely, Nilesh, but since now Nilesh has expired in a road accident, nothing further can be done. 4. Per contra, Ms. Mehta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent no.1, submits that undoubtedly there is evidence against husband of respondent no.2/ complainant, but he has died in a road accident. She then submits that first information report does not show any specific allegation against father-in-law of respondent no.2, i.e. applicant. 5. We have heard learned Counsel for the rival parties and perused the first information report. Upon perusal of the first information report, we find that there are specific allegations against husband of respondent no.2/complainant about cruelty or as the case may be. However, so far as applicant is concerned, there are no specific allegations against him in the first information report except at the end of the first information report, in totally vague and general terms it is mentioned that the applicant also used to ask her to get money from her parents. We do not think that such unclear and vague allegation would make out any offence against the applicant. The son of the applicant against whom specific allegations have been made has expired in a road accident. Therefore, we do not think that there is any point in continuing with the prosecution. 6. Since on merits we find no specific allegations against the applicant, we make the following order: Order Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (i) of Criminal Application No.174/2015. Criminal Application No.174/2015 is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.