JUDGMENT : B.R. GAVAI, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. By way of present petition, the petitioner prays for quashing and setting aside First Information Report date 22.11.2015 registered vide Crime No. 543 of 2015 at Police Station, Gittikhadan for the offence punishable under Section 420 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Perusal of the F.I.R. would reveal that respondent no.4 has alleged therein that her marriage was arranged with petitioner no.1. It is her allegation that when she was working as a Police Constable at the Police Headquarters, one Shashikant Verma, who was working as an Assistant Police Inspector, was indulged in the business of money lending. It is further alleged that she used to assist said Shashikant Verma in the business of money lending and as such, there were telephonic conversations between her and said Shashikant Verma. It is further alleged that huge expenses were incurred on the engagement ceremony and also for the marriage ceremony by her parents, which was scheduled to be held on 22.11.2015. However, on 20.11.2015, the wife of said Shashikant Verma namely Dileshwari Verma, showing the call detail report of mobile conversations between respondent no.4 and said Shashikant Verma, made false allegations against her character, due to which the marriage scheduled on 22.11.2015 came to be cancelled by present petitioner no. 1. 4. It could thus be seen that, even taking the allegation in the F.I.R. at it's face value, no ingredients to constitute an offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code are made out. There is no allegation as to how any of the petitioners have induced respondent no.4 to deliver the property to any of the petitioners. 5. Insofar as rest of the petitioners except petitioner no.1 are concerned, there is not even a whisper with regard to their role in the alleged crime. The only role attributed to them is that the rest of the petitioners were also informed about the character of respondent no.4 by said Dileshwari w/o. Shashikant Verma. 6. In that view of the matter, we find that continuation of criminal proceedings against the present petitioners is nothing but an abuse of process of law. Rule is, therefore, made absolute in terms of prayer clause (A) of the present Writ Petition. No order as to costs. Order accordingly.