JUDGMENT : A.J. Shastri, J. 1. The present petition is directed against lodging of F.I.R. being C.R. No. I-86 of 2013 dated 03.05.2013 registered at Gandhidham-A Police Station, Bhuj-Kachchh for the offence punishable under sections 498A and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, and seeking quashing of the said F.I.R. by invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Brief facts are that applicant No. 1 and respondent No. 1-original complainant have entered into wedlock on 06.02.2007 as per the customs and rituals and after their marriage, for about two months, they stayed in India and thereafter, they went to Fujairah in U.A.E. Out of the said wedlock, one daughter, named, Disha, born, who is around 4 years at the time when the complaint came to be filed. Applicants No. 2 and 3 are mother-in-law and father-in-law respectively. It is the case of the complainant that after their marriage, they resided together for three months at Bhuj and during that period, mother-in- law and brother-in-law were instigating applicant No. 1-husband and in turn, respondent No. 1 was subjected to ill treatment and harassment by applicant No. 1. After about three months thereafter, all of them went to U.A.E. as stated above and respondent No. 1 thought that position will improve. However, applicant No. 1 had continued to harass the complainant. On 17.02.2012, in India, marriage of brother of the complainant was scheduled and respondent No. 1- complainant had requested the applicants to allow her to attend the said marriage. Though respondent No. 1-complainant was allowed, the applicants did not send her daughter to accompany her to India. Later on, it has been averred in the complaint that the applicants brought Disha - daughter of the complainant with them to India, but denied custody of the child to respondent No. 1- complainant. So much so, respondent No. 1-complainant was constrained to file a private complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class being Criminal Misc. Application No. 49 of 2013 under section 97 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking custody of her daughter-Disha. So much so, respondent No. 1-complainant was constrained to file a private complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class being Criminal Misc. Application No. 49 of 2013 under section 97 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking custody of her daughter-Disha. In the said complaint filed by respondent No. 1 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, the applicants took stand that respondent No. 1 herself left her daughter and she does not want to reside with her and an affidavit to that effect was filed before the learned Magistrate on 17.05.2013. The complainant in the complaint has averred that all the persons, who are named in the complaint, in collusion with each other, were instigating applicant No. 1 - husband, which had resulted into mental and physical harassment, but with a hope that at some point of time the situation will improve, respondent No. 1 - complainant had tolerated, but then after sending her to India in the year 2012, these applicants have neither returned nor called respondent No. 1- complainant to their place, nor have made any arrangement for daughter-Disha to be seen by respondent No. 1- complainant. It has specially been mentioned that mother in law- Naynaben as well as brother in law, while in India, have specifically conveyed that respondent No. 1- complainant is no longer required and by asserting so, they went back to U.A.E. In this distressed situation, respondent No. 1-complainant was left by the applicants and making such kind of assertion in the complaint the complainant filed the complaint before Gandhidham Police Station in the form of F.I.R., as stated above. It is in this background that when the applicants were to be proceeded with the above proceedings, they approached this Court by way of this Criminal Application seeking quashing of the said complaint. This Court, on 25.06.2013 has admitted the petition and granted interim relief of not taking any coercive steps against the applicants and in the meantime, on 29.07.2013, respondent No. 1 has filed an affidavit in reply. Since then the matter was pending final hearing. The matter has come up for final hearing in the month of June 2016 and the same is being taken up for final hearing. 3. Since then the matter was pending final hearing. The matter has come up for final hearing in the month of June 2016 and the same is being taken up for final hearing. 3. Learned advocate Shri Hiren Modi had contended that the complaint filed by respondent No. 1 is nothing but a clear example of abuse of process of law and therefore, the same may not be maintained in the interest of justice. It was further contended by Shri Modi, learned counsel that the allegations made in the complaint are too general in nature, there is neither specific attribution nor specific allegation levelled against each of the applicants nor minute details were given in the complaint, and therefore, on the basis of such kind of general allegations, criminal law may not be allowed to be put to motion by respondent No. 1-complainant. It was also contended that from a bare reading of the complaint it appears that what had happened with respondent No. 1-complainant is alleged to have happened in U.A.E., and not in India. Therefore, it has been strenuously contended that this Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the petition, which ultimately tantamounts to be allowing abuse of process of law by respondent No. 1- complainant. It has also been contended that respondent No. 1 left U.A.E. on her own volition, it was not because of any ill treatment. In fact, it was contended that the said fact was very much pointed out in the separate proceedings initiated by her under section 97 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and detailed affidavit came to be filed on 17.05.2013 and therefore, in the background of that fact, the learned counsel for the applicants contended that no case is made out against the applicants and allowing the prosecution to investigate into the complaint in question would tantamount to sheer abuse of process of law. The learned counsel further contended that on the contrary, the daughter born out of the wedlock is being taken care of by the applicants and no concrete steps have been taken by respondent No. 1 to see the daughter. Even the allegations levelled against the applicants are taken in as it is form, it would not constitute an offence under section 498A read with 114 of IPC. It was also contended that there was an unexplained delay in filing the F.I.R. lodged by respondent No. 1. Even the allegations levelled against the applicants are taken in as it is form, it would not constitute an offence under section 498A read with 114 of IPC. It was also contended that there was an unexplained delay in filing the F.I.R. lodged by respondent No. 1. It is in the background of these facts, learned counsel for the applicants has relied on the following decisions: (i) Judgment dated 25.03.2015 in the case of Lavjit Alias Ravi Prakash Soni & 3 others Vs. State of Gujarat & another, delivered by this Court in Special Criminal Application No. 5139 of 2014. (ii) Judgment dated 26.09.2014 in the case of Dipakbhai Ratilal Patel & 5 others Vs. State of Gujarat & another, delivered by this Court in Criminal Misc. Application No. 5819 of 2009, and (iii) Judgment dated 13.11.2014 in the case of Narendrasinh Ramuji Vaghela & two others Vs. State of Gujarat & another, delivered by this Court in Criminal Misc. Application No. 10161 of 2014. Based upon these judgments, the learned counsel for the applicants requested the Court that almost in a similar situation, where allegations are too general in nature, this Court even at the stage of investigation and in respect of F.I.R. had intervened and exercised inherent jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and therefore, the learned counsel requested the Court to quash the F.I.R. as no case is made out against any of the applicants. The learned counsel requested that any dispute entangled in the marriage life would not ipso facto allow the spouse concerned to put the criminal law into motion at any point of time and therefore, the complaint in question is nothing but serious abuse of process of law, which deserves to be quashed by granting relief as prayed for. 4. As against this, the learned advocate appearing for respondent No. 1-Shri Pathan for Shri Ashish Dagli has filed affidavit on 29.07.2013, wherein the stand taken by the applicants is controverted and it has been pointed out that all the applicants were repeatedly ill-treating respondent No. 1 and it has also been asserted in the affidavit that even in the month of February 2012 when the applicants were in India, have committed offence. Thus, prima facie, it appears from the stand taken in the affidavit in reply by respondent No. 1 that when the applicants were in India also the offence was committed. 5. It was also contended by Shri Pathan, learned advocate for respondent No. 1 that the offence under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code be treated as continuous offence and even if the allegations made are general in nature, the Court has to presume that the same have been committed outside India, viz. at a place where respondent No. 1 was residing at the relevant point of time in U.A.E. The learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has drawn attention of the Court that there is a specific section contained in Indian Penal Code, viz. section 4, which envisages that the provisions of the Code have an extended limit even covering extraterritorial offence by contending that the offence is said to have been committed even in U.A.E. and therefore, this Court has jurisdiction to deal with the same by virtue of the said section. As such the courts in India can apply the said provision and try the same, even if it had occurred in U.A.E. It has been contended that prima facie, the case is made out and therefore, it may not intercepted at this stage of proceedings in exercise of inherent jurisdiction. 6. In the affidavit in reply, in general what has been averred in the complaint is also reiterated and tried to justify that the complaint filed is just and proper and cannot be said to be an abuse of process of law. In addition thereto, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Ms. Jirga Jhaveri also supports the case of respondent No. 1 and contends that since the proceedings are at the stage of F.I.R. this Court may not exercise the jurisdiction and thereby tried to oppose the petition filed by the applicants. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the complaint in as it is form, few things are emerging which cannot be unnoticed. First of all, it appears from the reading of the complaint that the allegations are absolutely general in nature and the allegations are pertaining to a period prior or around 2012. It appears from the tenor of the complaint that there might be some grievance pertaining to the custody of the child. First of all, it appears from the reading of the complaint that the allegations are absolutely general in nature and the allegations are pertaining to a period prior or around 2012. It appears from the tenor of the complaint that there might be some grievance pertaining to the custody of the child. But it appears from the record that the child from the beginning was with the applicants. It is also emerging from the complaint that there is no specific time limit, no specific period, no specific allegation as to in what manner ill treatment was meted out and so it appears to be a complaint engineered to achieve some goal, which otherwise would have been in a different proceedings. The complaint is filed for the offence punishable under section 498A and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and to ascertain whether the offence under section 498A of IPC is made out or not, a bare perusal of the said provision is worth to be taken note of. Hence the same reproduced hereunder: "498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty. - Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation. - For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means- (a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand." This provision indicates that whoever being husband or relative of husband subjects a woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation to this section has pointed out the meaning of 'cruelty'. Explanation to this section has pointed out the meaning of 'cruelty'. Clauses (a) and (b) refer to 'harassment' which is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or harassment of the woman with a view to coercing her to meet any unlawful demand as stated in the same. Here from the complaint it appears that there is no demand of dowry, but harassment was alleged in various forms and specific assertion is made in the complaint that this harassment has caused mental and physical disturbance at the instance of the present applicants, and therefore, an offence is made out. From the bare reading of the complaint it does appear that there is no specific attribution against each of the applicants and as to the role played by them and it also appears to the Court that the complaint in question is filed after almost a period of more than one year. From reading of the complaint it appears that in the year 2012, to attend the marriage ceremony of brother of respondent No. 1, she came to India, but except filing proceedings under section 97 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Magistrate in the month of February 2013, no steps have ever been initiated by her and the present complaint came to be filed in the month of May 2013. Reading of the complaint does appear that the offence under section 498A of the IPC is not made out. 7. In the background of these facts, a question arises whether at this stage, in the proceedings Court can intervene in exercise of extraordinary power under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or not. To deal with this question, there are series of decisions which can be taken note of and broad proposition is that even at the stage of recording of F.I.R. powers under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised, if situation so demands. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a matter between P.S. Meherhomji Vs. K.T. Vijaykumar, reported in (2015) 1 SCC 788 has categorized that there is no straitjacket formula that simply because the case is at the stage of F.I.R. no power can be exercised. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a matter between P.S. Meherhomji Vs. K.T. Vijaykumar, reported in (2015) 1 SCC 788 has categorized that there is no straitjacket formula that simply because the case is at the stage of F.I.R. no power can be exercised. It has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that when a bare reading of the complaint makes, prima facie, clear that the offences alleged are not established the court can exercise jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If the averments contained in the complaint in as it is form are not establishing any offence, then the Court can certainly examine the issue and arrive at conclusion to quash the complaint. 8. This proposition is also culled out from the decision of a Coordinate-Bench of this Court in judgment dated 13.11.2014 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 10161 of 2014, wherein also after considering several decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court this Court has observed as under:- "11. In my view, this petition is squarely covered by the judgment and order dated 26th September 2014 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 5819 of 2009 by this Court itself. The relevant portion reads as under: "21 to 24 ... .... 25. Thus, it could be seen from the above that the apex Court has noticed the tendency of the married women roping in all the relatives of her husband in such complaints only with a view to harass all of them, though they may not be even remotely involved in the offence alleged. 26. Once the FIR is lodged under Sections 498A/406/323 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, whether there are vague, unspecific or exaggerated allegations or there is no evidence of any physical or mental harm or injury inflicted upon woman that is likely to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health, it comes as an easy tool in the hands of Police and agencies like Crime Against Women Cell to hound them with the threat of arrest making them run helter skelter and force them to hide at their friends or relatives houses till they get anticipatory bail as the offence has been made cognizable and non-bailable. Thousands of such complaints and cases are pending and are being lodged day in and day out. Thousands of such complaints and cases are pending and are being lodged day in and day out. There is a growing tendency to come out with inflated and exaggerated allegations roping in each and every relation of the husband and if one of them happens to be of higher status or of a vulnerable standing, he or she becomes an easy prey for better bargaining and blackmailing. 27. ... ... 28. ... ... 29. I am of the view that the category 7 referred to above should be taken into consideration and applied in a case like the present one, a bit liberally. If the Court is convinced by the fact that the involvement by the complainant of all close relatives of the husband is with an oblique motive, then even if the FIR and the charge-sheet disclose commission of a cognizable offence on plain reading of the both, the Court, with a view to doing substantial justice, should read in between the lines the oblique motive of the complainant and take a pragmatic view of the matter. If the proposition of law as sought to be canvassed by Mr. Raval, the learned APP is applied mechanically to this type of cases, then in my opinion, the very inherent power conferred by the Code upon the High Court would be rendered otiose. I am saying so for the simple reason that if the wife, due to disputes with her husband, decides to not only harass her husband, but all other close relatives of the husband, then she would ensure that proper allegations are levelled against each and every such relative, although knowing fully well that they are in no way concerned with the matrimonial dispute between the husband and the wife. Many times the services of professionals are availed of and once the complaint is drafted by a legal mind, it would be very difficult thereafter to pick up any loopholes or other deficiencies in the same. However, that does not mean that the Court should shut its eyes and raise its hands in helplessness, saying that whether true or false, there are allegations in the first information report and the charge-sheet papers discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. It is because of the growing tendency to involve innocent persons that the Supreme Court in the case of Pawan Kumar Vs. It is because of the growing tendency to involve innocent persons that the Supreme Court in the case of Pawan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1998 SC 958 has cautioned the Courts to act with circumspection. In the words of the Supreme Court "often innocent persons are also trapped or brought in with ulterior motives and therefore this places an arduous duty on the Court to separate such individuals from the offenders. Hence, the Courts have to deal such cases with circumspection, sift through the evidence with caution, scrutinize the circumstances with utmost care." 30. ... ... 31. ... ... 32. ... ... 33. What constitutes cruelty in matrimonial matters has been well explained in American Jurisprudence 2nd edition Vol. 24 page 206. It reads thus:- "The question whether the misconduct complained of constitute cruelty and the like for divorce purposes is determined primarily by its effect upon the particular person complaining of the acts. The question is not whether the conduct would be cruel to a reasonable person or a person of average or normal sensibilities, but whether it would have that effect upon the aggrieved spouse. That which may be cruel to one person may be laughed off by another, and what may not be cruel to an individual under one set of circumstances may be extreme cruelty under another set of circumstances." Ultimately, it was held that the complaint even prior to the stage of filing is ordered to be quashed. 9. In a decision delivered on 26.09.2014 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 5819 of 2009, after considering several decisions, this Court has observed that in case on hand that allegations levelled by respondent No. 2 of that particular case are quite vague, general and sweeping and therefore, considering various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court has quashed the criminal proceedings by holding that the said is nothing but abuse of process of law and travesty of justice. For arriving at such a conclusion the Court held that, "26. For arriving at such a conclusion the Court held that, "26. Once the FIR is lodged under Sections 498A/406/323 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, whether there are vague, unspecific or exaggerated allegations or there is no evidence of any physical or mental harm or injury inflicted upon woman that is likely to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health, it comes as an easy tool in the hands of Police and agencies like Crime Against Women Cell to hound them with the threat of arrest making them run helter skelter and force them to hide at their friends or relatives houses till they get anticipatory bail as the offence has been made cognizable and non-bailable. Thousands of such complaints and cases are pending and are being lodged day in and day out. There is a growing tendency to come out with inflated and exaggerated allegations roping in each and every relation of the husband and if one of them happens to be of higher status or of a vulnerable standing, he or she becomes an easy prey for better bargaining and blackmailing. 27. ... ... 28. ... ... 29. I am of the view that the category 7 referred to above should be taken into consideration and applied in a case like the present one, a bit liberally. If the Court is convinced by the fact that the involvement by the complainant of all close relatives of the husband is with an oblique motive, then even if the FIR and the charge-sheet disclose commission of a cognizable offence on plain reading of the both, the Court, with a view to doing substantial justice, should read in between the lines the oblique motive of the complainant and take a pragmatic view of the matter. If the proposition of law as sought to be canvassed by Mr. Raval, the learned APP is applied mechanically to this type of cases, then in my opinion, the very inherent power conferred by the Code upon the High Court would be rendered otiose. If the proposition of law as sought to be canvassed by Mr. Raval, the learned APP is applied mechanically to this type of cases, then in my opinion, the very inherent power conferred by the Code upon the High Court would be rendered otiose. I am saying so for the simple reason that if the wife, due to disputes with her husband, decides to not only harass her husband, but all other close relatives of the husband, then she would ensure that proper allegations are levelled against each and every such relative, although knowing fully well that they are in no way concerned with the matrimonial dispute between the husband and the wife. Many times the services of professionals are availed of and once the complaint is drafted by a legal mind, it would be very difficult thereafter to pick up any loopholes or other deficiencies in the same. However, that does not mean that the Court should shut its eyes and raise its hands in helplessness, saying that whether true or false, there are allegations in the first information report and the charge-sheet papers discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. It is because of the growing tendency to involve innocent persons that the Supreme Court in the case of Pawan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1998 SC 958 has cautioned the Courts to act with circumspection. In the words of the Supreme Court "often innocent persons are also trapped or brought in with ulterior motives and therefore this places an arduous duty on the Court to separate such individuals from the offenders. Hence, the Courts have to deal such cases with circumspection, sift through the evidence with caution, scrutinize the circumstances with utmost care." 30. ... ... 31. Many times, the parents including the close relatives of the wife make a mountain out of a mole. Instead of salvaging the situation and making all possible endeavours to save the marriage, their action either due to ignorance or on account of sheer hatredness towards the husband and his family members, brings about complete destruction of marriage on trivial issues. The first thing that comes in the mind of the wife, her parents and her relatives is the Police, as if the Police is the panacea of all evil. The first thing that comes in the mind of the wife, her parents and her relatives is the Police, as if the Police is the panacea of all evil. No sooner the matter reaches up to the Police, then even if there are fair chances of reconciliation between the spouses, they would get destroyed. The foundation of a sound marriage is tolerance, adjustment and respecting one another. Tolerance to each other's fault to a certain bearable extent has to be inherent in every marriage. Petty quibbles, trifling differences are mundane matters and should not be exaggerated and blown out of proportion to destroy what is said to have been made in the heaven. The Court must appreciate that all quarrels must be weighed from that point of view in determining what constitutes cruelty in each particular case, always keeping in view the physical and mental conditions of the parties, their character and social status. A very technical and hyper sensitive approach would prove to be disastrous for the very institution of the marriage. In matrimonial disputes the main sufferers are the children. The spouses fight with such venom in their heart that they do not think even for a second that if the marriage would come to an end, then what will be the effect on their children. Divorce plays a very dubious role so far as the upbringing of the children is concerned. The only reason why I am saying so is that instead of handling the whole issue delicately, the initiation of criminal proceedings would bring about nothing but hatredness for each other. There may be cases of genuine ill-treatment and harassment by the husband and his family members towards the wife. The degree of such ill-treatment or harassment may vary. However, the Police machinery should be resorted to as a measure of last resort and that too in a very genuine case of cruelty and harassment. The Police machinery cannot be utilized for the purpose of holding the husband at ransom so that he could be squeezed by the wife at the instigation of her parents or relatives or friends. In all cases where wife complains of harassment or ill-treatment, Section 498-A of the IPC cannot be applied mechanically. No F.I.R. is complete without Sections 506(2) and 323 of the IPC. Every matrimonial conduct, which may cause annoyance to the other, may not amount to cruelty. In all cases where wife complains of harassment or ill-treatment, Section 498-A of the IPC cannot be applied mechanically. No F.I.R. is complete without Sections 506(2) and 323 of the IPC. Every matrimonial conduct, which may cause annoyance to the other, may not amount to cruelty. Mere trivial irritations, quarrels between spouses, which happen in day today married life, may also not amount to cruelty. 32. Lord Denning, in Kaslefsky Vs. Kaslefsky (1950) 2 All ER 398 observed as under:- "When the conduct consists of direct action by one against the other, it can then properly be said to be aimed at the other, even though there is no desire to injure the other or to inflict misery on him. Thus, it may consist of a display of temperament, emotion, or perversion whereby the one gives vent to his or her own feelings, not intending to injure the other, but making the other the object-the butt-at whose expense the emotion is relieved." When there is no intent to injure, they are not to be regarded as cruelty unless they are plainly and distinctly proved to cause injury to health ........ when the conduct does not consist of direct action against the other, but only of misconduct indirectly affecting him or her, such as drunkenness, gambling, or crime, then it can only properly be said to be aimed at the other when it is done, not only for the gratification of the selfish desires of the one who does it, but also in some part with an intention to injure the other or to inflict misery on him or her. Such an intention may readily be inferred from the fact that it is the natural consequence of his conduct, especially when the one spouse knows, or it has already been brought to his notice, what the consequences will be, and nevertheless he does it, careless and indifferent whether it distresses the other spouse or not. The Court is, however not bound to draw the inference. The presumption that a person intends the natural consequences of his acts is one that may not must-be drawn. If in all the circumstances it is not the correct inference, then it should not be drawn. The Court is, however not bound to draw the inference. The presumption that a person intends the natural consequences of his acts is one that may not must-be drawn. If in all the circumstances it is not the correct inference, then it should not be drawn. In cases of this kind, if there is no desire to injure or inflict misery on the other, the conduct only becomes cruelty when the justifiable remonstrance's of the innocent party provoke resentment on the part of the other, which evinces itself in actions or words actually or physically directed at the innocent party." 33. What constitutes cruelty in matrimonial matters has been well explained in American Jurisprudence 2nd edition Vol. 24 page 206. It reads thus:- "The question whether the misconduct complained of constitute cruelty and the like for divorce purposes is determined primarily by its effect upon the particular person complaining of the acts. The question is not whether the conduct would be cruel to a reasonable person or a person of average or normal sensibilities, but whether it would have that effect upon the aggrieved spouse. That which may be cruel to one person may be laughed off by another, and what may not be cruel to an individual under one set of circumstances may be extreme cruelty under another set of circumstances." 10. In view of the aforesaid proposition of law, in particular, if the case on hand is taken into consideration, the complaint filed by respondent No. 1 on 03.05.2013 deserves to be dealt with in a similar manner by holding it to be an abuse of process of law. Even in the affidavit in reply also nothing more has come out, except a mere reiteration of averments of the complaint and therefore, in absence of any contrary material available on record, the complaint does not make out any offence as alleged. 11. A bare reading of the complaint generated by respondent No. 1 reveals that there is no specific accusation, there is no exact period, during which the offence is committed and the same is at a grossly bleated stage, without a whisper about the delay under which circumstance it had occurred. 11. A bare reading of the complaint generated by respondent No. 1 reveals that there is no specific accusation, there is no exact period, during which the offence is committed and the same is at a grossly bleated stage, without a whisper about the delay under which circumstance it had occurred. The allegations prima facie, are absolutely general and vague in nature and it appears that with a view to take revenge or to secure custody of child this attempt is made by alleging the offence against the petitioner and therefore, the criminal law may not be allowed to put to motion in such a casual and cavalier way by any citizen and time and again decisions are taken to the effect that process of criminal law is precious in nature and therefore, it may not be allowed to be put in motion in a routine or casual manner. This background of facts clearly establishes that prima facie, no offence having been committed. The ultimate conclusion would lead to a situation that the Court is constrained to dispose of the petition in the foregoing background. 12. It is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that to put criminal law into motion in a casual manner by a litigant, the same is to be viewed seriously and not to encourage such attempt. The case on hand has, no doubt, a disheartened element under which rift has emerged between husband and wife, but to ventilate the said grievance of respondent No. 1 by way of putting criminal law in motion by filing such a casual complaint, the said attempt appears to be not genuine and therefore, it is noticed by the Court that the same is nothing but an abuse of process of law. In the background of the aforesaid fact and considering the averments of the complaint and contention raised by the respective parties the Court is of the opinion that to allow the complaint to precipitate further would tantamount to abuse of process of law and therefore, the complaint in question, viz. C.R. No. I-86 of 2013 dated 03.05.2013 registered at Gandhidham-A Police Station, Bhuj-Kachchh for the offence punishable under section 498A and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, is hereby ordered to be quashed and set aside. C.R. No. I-86 of 2013 dated 03.05.2013 registered at Gandhidham-A Police Station, Bhuj-Kachchh for the offence punishable under section 498A and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, is hereby ordered to be quashed and set aside. It is needless to say that the Court has examined the complaint only in view of the a particular offence under sections 498A and 115 of the IPC and therefore, without expressing any opinion with respect to other aspects about the dispute between the applicants and respondent No. 1 herein, the present petition is disposed of. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.