JUDGMENT : V.M. Pancholi, J. 1. This application is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code' for short) for quashing and setting aside the FIR being C.R. No. I-26 of 2012 registered with Gandhidham 'A' Division Police Station, Kutch. 2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Kariel for the applicants, learned APP Mr. Shah for the respondent-State and learned advocate Mr. Thakore for respondent No. 2. 3. Learned advocate Mr. Kariel submitted that the respondent No. 2-complainant got married with applicant No. 1 in May, 2011. In September, 2011, the respondent No. 2-complainant had left matrimonial home at Gandhidham and had gone back to her parents house situated at Bhuj. It is submitted that applicant No. 1 submitted an application on 14.2.2012 to Police Inspector, Bhuj City Police Station wherein it has been alleged that his wife i.e. respondent No. 2 herein had left the house of the applicants on 28.9.2011 and thereafter she has not returned to Gandhidham where the applicants are residing. The applicants came to know that the respondent No. 2 has eloped with one Rajesh Punjabhai on 12.2.2012 and it was also informed to the parents about the respondent No. 2. It was apprehended that the parents of respondent No. 2 may file false complaint against the applicants and family members. It was also alleged that respondent No. 2, while leaving the matrimonial home, had taken certain jewellery along with her and therefore appropriate action be taken. It is pointed out that after the application of the applicant No. 1, the father of the respondent No. 2 submitted an application on 15.2.2012 before Bhuj City Police Station wherein he has stated that his daughter was missing. Thus, the said application was registered as Missing Complaint No. 5 of 2012. Thereafter, the respondent No. 2 had, after travelling with one Rajesh Punjabhai, returned to Gandhidham on 16.2.2012 and informed about the same to her parents. The concerned police authorities therefore recorded the statement of the respondent No. 2 on 17.2.2012 wherein she has specifically stated that on 12.2.2012 she had left her father's house with her friend Rajesh Punjabhai and they had travelled to Radhanpur, Surat and Rajkot and ultimately they had come to Gandhidham on 16.2.2012 in the afternoon. The concerned police authorities therefore recorded the statement of the respondent No. 2 on 17.2.2012 wherein she has specifically stated that on 12.2.2012 she had left her father's house with her friend Rajesh Punjabhai and they had travelled to Radhanpur, Surat and Rajkot and ultimately they had come to Gandhidham on 16.2.2012 in the afternoon. Learned advocate has referred to the statement of respondent No. 2 which is produced at page 21B of the compilation. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Kariel submits that as a counter-blast to the aforesaid incident and written applications given by the applicant No. 1, immediately after a period of two days on 19.2.2012, the respondent No. 2 filed the impugned FIR against the applicants under Section 498A, 323 and 114 of Indian Penal Code wherein it has been alleged that the applicant No. 2 has wrongly published in the newspaper that the respondent No. 2 has taken the jewellery worth Rs. 70,000/- with her. The general allegations are levelled against the applicants that the applicants were giving physical and mental torture to her. It is contended that the impugned FIR is nothing but a gross abuse of process of the Court and therefore this Court may quash and set aside the said impugned FIR. 5. During the course of arguments, learned advocate Mr. Kariel has placed on record the decree passed by the Civil Court, Bhuj in HMP No. 56 of 2012 filed by the applicant No. 1 against the respondent No. 2. It is submitted that the petition filed by the applicant No. 1 for divorce has been allowed by the concerned Civil Court by order dated 8.8.2013. He, therefore, requested that in view of the aforesaid decree, the impugned FIR and the proceedings filed pursuant thereto be quashed and set aside in the interest of justice. 6. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Thakore appearing for the respondent No. 2 submitted that the ingredients of the alleged offences are clearly made out in the impugned FIR and therefore this Court may not exercise the powers under Section 482 of the Code. He, therefore, requested that this petition be dismissed. 7. Learned APP Mr. Shah has also supported the contentions raised by learned advocate Mr. Thakore appearing for respondent No. 2. 8. He, therefore, requested that this petition be dismissed. 7. Learned APP Mr. Shah has also supported the contentions raised by learned advocate Mr. Thakore appearing for respondent No. 2. 8. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the material produced on record, it has emerged that the respondent No. 2 has resided with her in-laws for a period of four months from the date of her marriage and before filing of the impugned FIR since last more than five months, she was residing with her parents. During the said period, the respondent No. 2 has not made any grievance against the applicants nor she has filed any complaint against them alleging any physical or mental torture given by her in-laws. However, the impugned FIR came to be filed on 19.2.2012. Before that, on 14.2.2012, applicant No. 1 has submitted an application to the Police Inspector, Bhuj city police station in which it has been specifically stated that the respondent No. 2 had left the house of the applicants on 28.9.2011 and since then she is residing with her parents. It is also alleged that while leaving the matrimonial home, the respondent No. 2 has taken certain jewellery along with her and therefore appropriate action be taken against her. It was also pointed out that the applicants came to know that the respondent No. 2 has eloped with one Rajesh Punjabhai on 12.2.2012. The father of the respondent No. 2 came to know about the same and he also filed an application on 15.2.2012 that his daughter is missing. The said application is registered as Missing Register No. 5 of 2012. Thereafter, the respondent No. 2 returned to Gandhidham on 16.2.2012 and therefore her statement was recorded by the police on 17.2.2012. If the statement given by the respondent produced at page 21B of the compilation is seen, it is clear that she has specifically admitted that she had voluntarily left her father's house with one Rajesh Punjabhai who is her friend and she had travelled with him at different places for a period of more than four days. When the aforesaid aspect was reported in the newspaper with the complaint given by the applicant No. 2 that the respondent No. 2 had taken the jewellery worth Rs. When the aforesaid aspect was reported in the newspaper with the complaint given by the applicant No. 2 that the respondent No. 2 had taken the jewellery worth Rs. 70,000/- along with her when she left her matrimonial house, it appears that as a counter-blast, on 19.2.2012, the impugned FIR came to be registered against the applicants. 9. Even otherwise, while reading the impugned FIR, the ingredients of the alleged offences are not made out. Further, when the Civil Court has passed a decree of divorce in HMP No. 56 of 2012 during the pendency of the present proceedings, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned FIR is nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court and in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the impugned FIR and the proceedings pursuant thereto are required to be quashed and set aside in the interest of justice. Accordingly, this application is allowed. The FIR being FIR being C.R. No. I-26 of 2012 registered with Gandhidham 'A' Division Police Station, Kutch and the proceedings pursuant thereto are quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute. Application Allowed.