JUDGMENT : BIREN VAISHNAV, J. This Court by an earlier order had directed the petitioners to publish an advertisement for substituted service to respondent No. 2. In compliance of such process of service, the learned advocate for the petitioners has filed an affidavit dated 10.07.2017 placing on record an advertisement dated 10.03.2017 By the aforesaid advertisement the notice of hearing of this application was published in newspaper. The said application was thereafter adjourned from time to time. The respondent No. 2-original complainant has not appeared before this Court, though sufficient time has elapsed since the publication of the advertisement. Hence, the application is taken up for hearing today. 2. The present application has been filed by the applicant No. 1 and his family members for quashing of the complaint being at Annexure ‘A’ i.e. Criminal Case No. 16800 of 2009 and the order passed thereon dated 27.11.2009 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gandhinagar. 3. The facts in brief are as under: 4. The complainant filed the complaint before the Judicial Magistrate First Class under Section 494, 495, 496, 502, 498 etc., against the applicants. Briefly, it was the case of the complainant that she had married the applicant No. 1 and by virtue of such marriage, she was living with him in his quarter. The complaint further recites that on 19.06.2006, when she was with the applicant at his quarter at Gondal, she was driven out. Alleging harassment at the hands of the applicant No. 1, whom she posing as his wife, invoked Section 498-A and other sections of the Indian Penal Code. 5. It is this complaint, which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court. Mr. Darshan Dave, learned advocate for H.L. Patel Advocates, has pointed out that the applicant No. 1 is already a married man staying with his wife. From such marriage he has a daughter. As far as the complainant is concerned, she too is already married to one Agarsinh Chauhan of Banaskantha. The marriage still subsists, and therefore, the allegation that she has matrimonial relations with the present applicant is far from truth. The complaint is filed only on the basis of acquaintance of the petitioner No. 1 with the complainant. Reading of the complaint would show that the factum of marriage is not established. 6. Mr. The marriage still subsists, and therefore, the allegation that she has matrimonial relations with the present applicant is far from truth. The complaint is filed only on the basis of acquaintance of the petitioner No. 1 with the complainant. Reading of the complaint would show that the factum of marriage is not established. 6. Mr. Dave, has taken me through the extract of the evidence that the complainant gave before the Court, wherein, she lodged a case under the Domestic Violence Act. In her testimony before the Court, she has categorically stated that she has entered into a “Maitri Karaar” and that her marriage subsists with Agarsinh Chauhan. In her admission, she further states that, when the Police came to the quarter of the applicant No. 1 on 19.06.2006, she did not disclose her identity as the wife of the applicant No. 1. On this count it is submitted by learned advocate Shri Dave that, no case is made out for invoking Sections 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. 7. In a judgment in the case of Rajesh Sharma v. State of U.P, while considering the laudable object for which Section 498-A was inserted, the Court was conscious of the fact that complaints under Section 498-A have been filed more, to misuse such provision. Apparently, in the facts of the present case, it becomes apparent on reading of the First Information Report that the relationship between the applicant and the original complainant as husband and wife clearly does not stand established even on her own admission. In view of this and in the facts of the case, I think it appropriate to exercise my discretion under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in favour of the applicant. The rest of the applicants, who are relatives of the applicant no. 1, as a consequence also deserve the same treatment. The application is allowed and the Criminal Case No. 16800 of 2009 and all the consequential proceedings are hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.