JUDGMENT : A.J SHASTRI, J. The present petition is filed by the petitioners for quashing the criminal complaint being M. Case No. 9 of 2012 filed before the learned JMFC, Unjha as also the Police Investigation Case No. 11 of 2012 registered pursuant to the said criminal complaint. 2. Brief facts are as under: 2.1 The case of the complainant was that a marriage has taken place of her with petitioner No.1-Nayak Pranaykumar Manubhai at Unjha on 17.8.2009 It is also the case of the complainant that after marriage, the petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 had conveyed that father of the complainant had not given anything at the time of marriage and thereby, a demand of Rs. 1 lac was generated for the purpose of imported camera for his business purpose as the petitioner No. 1 happens to be a professional photographer. It was alleged in the complaint that this demand was raised at the instance of petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 and upon their instigation, torture has taken place upon her physically and mentally. It is further the case of the complainant that the parents have borrowed Rs.50,000/- from their relatives and by giving it to the petitioners, the complainant was tempted to the matrimonial house. It was also alleged in the complaint that remaining amount was being insisted upon by the petitioners and since the same was not possible to be paid, torture has taken place and the allegations about the character have also been leveled. It was further conveyed in the complaint that prior to one and half years, a ceremony of baby shower was arranged at the house of the petitioners and thereafter, when the complainant came back to the house of the petitioners after delivering a boy, the demand was repeated and then, was drifted from the matrimonial house and since then, it is conveyed that complainant is residing at her parental house. By making these general allegations in the complaint, it has been averred that on 2.4.2012 when the complainant went back to the house for collecting the cloths and ornaments of the petitioners from Visnagar, all the petitioners jointly abused the complainant and did not return the cloths and ornaments and at the instigation of petitioner Nos. By making these general allegations in the complaint, it has been averred that on 2.4.2012 when the complainant went back to the house for collecting the cloths and ornaments of the petitioners from Visnagar, all the petitioners jointly abused the complainant and did not return the cloths and ornaments and at the instigation of petitioner Nos. 2 to 5, petitioner No. 1 had driven her out by carrying her in rickshaw to the highway going to Unjha and also gave threats to the complainant not to enter the village Visnagar and then, petitioner No. 1 returned to the house and by making such general allegations, the complainant has lodged the complaint for offence punishable under Sections 498A, 405, 326, 504, 506(1) r/w Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. It is against that complaint, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C 3. On appreciation of averments contained in the petition, this Court, after hearing the parties to the proceedings, was pleased to admit the petition and granted the interim relief till final disposal vide e order dated 10.5.2012 and upon such, the petition has come up for final hearing. 4. Learned counsel, Mr. D.B Mehta appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that the complaint in question is nothing but a sheer example of abuse of process of law and the complainant has lodged the complaint by suppressing several material facts. It was also contended by the learned counsel that allegations which are leveled in the complaint do not inspire confidence nor prima facie even establishing any ingredients of offences having been committed. Learned counsel further submitted that the very conduct of the complainant of joining entire family speaks of volume about it and therefore, the only intent to lodge the complaint is to harass the family and rope all family members in a serious criminal prosecution. Learned counsel has further drawn the attention that the petitioner No.1 was earlier apprehending on account of the nature of the complainant that the family members will be arraigned in the prosecution and therefore, apprehending that even the petitioner No. 1 was constrained to file the complaint before the DSP, Mehsana which is produced at Pg.18 of the petition compilation. Learned counsel has further drawn the attention that the petitioner No.1 was earlier apprehending on account of the nature of the complainant that the family members will be arraigned in the prosecution and therefore, apprehending that even the petitioner No. 1 was constrained to file the complaint before the DSP, Mehsana which is produced at Pg.18 of the petition compilation. The said complaint which has been lodged before the DSP, Mehsana on 22.3.2012 has clearly indicated the serious apprehension voiced out by the petitioners wich can be seen from Para. 6 of the said complaint. 5. In the background of these facts, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that this is nothing but the sheer abuse of process of law which cannot be allowed to be encouraged in the interest of justice. Learned counsel further submitted that there was a transaction of money and not in terms of any demand for dowry which has already been stated in Para. 4 of the said complaint lodged before the DSP, Mehsana. Relying upon this material, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the complaint be quashed and the process of court of law may not be allowed to be misused at the behest of the complainant. In connection with this contention, learned counsel has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 as also in case of M. Saravana Porselvi v. A.R Chandrashekhar, reported in (2008) 11 SCC 520 and further relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in case of Bhaskarlal Sharma v. Bhumika, reported in (2009) 10 SCC 604 and in case of Preeti Gupta v. State Of Jharkhand, reported in (2010) 7 SCC 667 . Relying upon the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the abuse of process of law committed by respondent No. 2 may be corrected and the complaint in question being such glaring example be quashed in the interest of justice. 6. To oppose the petition, it can be seen from the record that at the time when this Court issued notice upon the respondents more particularly respondent No. 2, earlier Mr. AM. 6. To oppose the petition, it can be seen from the record that at the time when this Court issued notice upon the respondents more particularly respondent No. 2, earlier Mr. AM. Parmar, learned counsel had represented respondent No. 2 and after hearing him, this Court was pleased to admit the petition and confirmed the interim relief which has been granted. Thereafter, for a long period of time, Mr. A.M Parmar did not remain present and never turned up to assist the Court and therefore, on 17.6.2016, this Court has passed the following order: “The matter is called out four times. Learned advocate Mr. A.M Parekh appearing for respondent No. 2 has not turned up to assist the Court. Therefore, in the interest of justice, as a last chance, S.O to 24.6.2016 It is made clear that if Mr. Parekh is not available on that day, the Court will proceed further with the matter without fail.” 7. On the subsequent occasion also, a detailed order was required to be passed since no cooperation was extended by learned counsel, Mr. A.M Parekh and later on, when the petitioners insisted for final hearing, at that juncture a colleague advocate of Mr. Parekh submitted that papers have been handed over to respondent No. 2. It was then also a chance was given to the complainant to come forward to oppose the petition by issuing fresh notice on 22.7.2016 and on subsequent occasion also, when the hearing was insisted upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. R.B Barot conveyed to the Court that he was instructed by respondent No. 2 through legal aid to appraise the Court and therefore, on account of paucity of information, the time was granted in the interest of justice. Said circumstance occurred on 12.8.2016 and therefore, further chance was also extended to the complainant. Today, when the matter has come up for hearing on 2.9.2016, now in the 3rd call also, nobody remained present on behalf of respondent No. 2 which has constrained the Court to proceed further with the case. 8. Said circumstance occurred on 12.8.2016 and therefore, further chance was also extended to the complainant. Today, when the matter has come up for hearing on 2.9.2016, now in the 3rd call also, nobody remained present on behalf of respondent No. 2 which has constrained the Court to proceed further with the case. 8. In the background of aforesaid circumstance, the facts which are emerging from the record is that there was specific assertion made by the petitioner No. 1 much prior to alleged complaint being filed and a specific complaint came to be lodged before the DSP, Mehsana that the family may be arraigned in the criminal prosecution for no fault on their part. This was apprehended on account of the inimical terms which are developed with respondent No. 2 by the petitioner No.1 and the family members. The entire circumstance has been narrated in the said complaint which has been filed on 22.3.2012 On account of exchange of money which has nothing to do with the marriage dispute which are erupted with the complainant, the petitioner No.1 and family members were apprehended that they will arraigned in the prosecution and that apprehension which has been voiced out has come to reality and the impugned complaint came to be filed. A bare reading of the complaint would make it clear that the allegations which are leveled are absolutely general in nature and conduct of respondent No. 2 is to arraign the entire family is also indicative of the fact that with what intent the complaint is filed. The allegations which are leveled in the complaint are not establishing even prima facie the ingredients for which the offences are alleged to have been committed and therefore, the background of facts indicates that the respondent No. 2 has tried to abuse the process of law and there appears to be a different intent to lodge the complaint. The averments contained in the complaint are to be conjointly read, it would make it clear that the intention was just to rope the entire family and therefore, in the background of this fact, a reference is required to be made to a decision delivered by the Supreme Court in case of Preeti Gupta (Supra). Relevant extract of the said decision are profitable to be noted which reads, thus; “28. Relevant extract of the said decision are profitable to be noted which reads, thus; “28. We have very carefully considered the averments of the complaint and the statements of all the witnesses recorded at the time of the filing of the complaint. There are no specific allegations against the appellants in the complaint and none of the witnesses have alleged any role of both the appellants. 29. Admittedly, appellant no. 1 is a permanent resident of Navasari, Surat, Gujarat and has been living with her husband for more than seven years. Similarly, appellant no. 2 is a permanent resident of Goregaon, Maharasthra. They have never visited the place where the alleged incident had taken place. They had never lived with respondent no. 2 and her husband. Their implication in the complaint is meant to harass and humiliate the husband's relatives. This seems to be the only basis to file this complaint against the appellants. Permitting the complainant to pursue this complaint would be an abuse of the process of law. 31. The courts are receiving a large number of cases emanating from Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code which reads as under:- “498-A. 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 purposes of this section, ‘cruelty’ means:- (a) any wilful 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.” 37. Before parting with this case, we would like to observe that a serious re-look of the entire provision is warranted by the legislation. It is also a matter of common knowledge that exaggerated versions of the incident are reflected in a large number of complaints. Before parting with this case, we would like to observe that a serious re-look of the entire provision is warranted by the legislation. It is also a matter of common knowledge that exaggerated versions of the incident are reflected in a large number of complaints. The tendency of over implication is also reflected in a very large number of cases. The criminal trials lead to immense sufferings for all concerned. Even ultimate acquittal in the trial may also not be able to wipe out the deep scars of suffering of ignominy. Unfortunately a large number of these complaints have not only flooded the courts but also have led to enormous social unrest affecting peace, harmony and happiness of the society. It is high time that the legislature must take into consideration the pragmatic realities and make suitable changes in the existing law. It is imperative for the legislature to take into consideration the informed public opinion and the pragmatic realities in consideration and make necessary changes in the relevant provisions of law.” 9. In addition to the aforesaid decision delivered by the Supreme Court, the other decisions which are also relied upon are also worth to be taken note of. In case of Joseph Salvaraj A. v. State of Gujarat, reported in (2011) 7 SCC 59 , it has been held by the Supreme Court that if the prosecution is heading towards the harassment and humiliation and nothing else then, the inherent powers are required to be exercised. Relevant Paragraph 28 and 29 read, thus; “28. The Appellant cannot be allowed to go through the rigmarole of a criminal prosecution for long number of years, even when admittedly a civil suit has already been filed against the Appellant and Complainant-Respondent No. 4, and is still sub-judice. In the said suit, the Appellant is at liberty to contest the same on grounds available to him in accordance with law as per the leave granted by Trial Court. It may also be pertinent to mention here that the complainant has not been able to show that at any material point of time there was any contract, much less any privity of contract between the Appellant and Respondent No. 4 - the Complainant. There was no cause of action to even lodge an FIR against the Appellant as neither the Complainant had to receive the money nor he was in any Crl. There was no cause of action to even lodge an FIR against the Appellant as neither the Complainant had to receive the money nor he was in any Crl. A. @ S.L.P (Crl.) No. 2409 of 2007 way instrumental to telecast “GOD TV” in the central areas of Ahmedabad. He appears to be totally a stranger to the same. Appellant's prosecution would only lead to his harassment and humiliation, which cannot be permitted in accordance with the principles of law. 29. Thus, looking to the matter from all angles, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution of the Appellant for commission of the alleged offences would be clear abuse of the process of law.” 10. Similar is the case in a decision in case of Bhaskarlal Sharma (Supra) wherein also, even prima facie appears to the Court that the complaint is to be utilized as a lever to harass the family members and abuse the process of law, inherent powers can be exercised to meet with the ends of justice and therefore, the background of fact suggests that the impugned complaint is nothing but a reflection of intents to harass the petitioner and averments in the complaint are too general in nature, punishing the entire family would reveal that the process is to be utilized as a lever to pressurize the family. This certainly is not possible to encourage and therefore, in the interest of justice the Court finds that complaint deserves to be quashed. 11. A fact is further to be taken note of that though the respondent No. 2 is served long back by this Court and after hearing both the sides, confirmed the interim order, still however, after giving more than adequate chances, nobody has turned up to assist the Court on behalf of respondent No. 2 and therefore, it appears further that conduct of respondent No. 2 is just to lodge the complaint and then, to drag the family members to run after the court proceedings. This attempt on the part of respondent No. 2 is not to be encouraged and therefore, the complaint, in the background of aforesaid facts, deserves to be quashed and same is hereby quashed as also the subsequent proceedings arising there from. Rule is made absolute accordingly.