JUDGMENT : SWAPNA JOSHI, J. 1. Admit. Heard finally Shri Rajnish Vyas, learned advocate for applicants, Mrs. M.H. Deshmukh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for non-applicant no. 1-State and Shri N.S. Autkar, learned advocate for non-applicant no. 2 by consent. 2. The applicants have filed this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash and set aside F.I.R. No. 164/2017 dated 25.07.2017 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code registered by non- applicant no. 1-Police Station Officer, Police Station, Mankapur, District-Nagpur. 3. Brief facts of the case are as under: Applicant no. 11 is husband of non-applicant no. 2. Applicant no. 1 is father of applicant no. 11 Santosh, applicant no. 2 is mother of Santosh, applicant nos. 3, 4, 6 and 7 are sisters of Santosh, applicant no. 5 is husband of applicant no. 4, Applicant no. 8 is cousin uncle of Santosh, applicant no. 9 is son of applicant no. 8 and applicant no. 10 is brother-in-law of applicant no. 3. The marriage of non-applicant no. 2 was solemnized with applicant no. 11 on 23.06.2012. After marriage, non-applicant no. 2 started residing in a joint family where initially she was treated properly and thereafter she was harassed by her husband, in-laws and relatives. The applicants used to abuse her. Applicant no. 1, who is father-in-law of non-applicant no. 2 used to keep evil eye on her. The specific allegation of non-applicant no. 2 is that her husband applicant no. 11 used to ask her to establish a physical relationship with applicant no. 1-her father-in-law, applicant no. 5-Dipak Tiwari, the husband of sister of applicant no. 11 and applicant no. 10-Manoj Dube, who is also a brother-in-law of applicant no. 11 for the reason that non-applicant no. 2 did not conceive for a quite considerable period after the marriage. It is alleged that although non-applicant no. 2 started residing separately with her husband applicant no. 11, however, the said harassment continued at the hands of the applicants herein. Even applicant no. 1-father-in-law harassed non-applicant no. 2 by forcibly entering into the bathroom where she used to take bath. It is further alleged that applicant no. 11 used to insist non-applicant no. 2 to bring money from her father and establish physical relationship with her own brother or else his father was ready to do the same with her. Even applicant no. 1-father-in-law harassed non-applicant no. 2 by forcibly entering into the bathroom where she used to take bath. It is further alleged that applicant no. 11 used to insist non-applicant no. 2 to bring money from her father and establish physical relationship with her own brother or else his father was ready to do the same with her. So far as other applicants are concerned, there are general allegations against them and no specific allegations are there about the alleged cruelty. 4. The learned advocate for the applicants vociferously contended that no offence is made out against the applicants even if the allegations in the FIR are accepted at its face value. He however did not seriously dispute that there are serious allegations against the husband and father-in-law. 5. As against this, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for non-applicant no. 1-State and learned advocate for non-applicant no. 2 strongly opposed the application and submitted that in view of the serious allegations made by non-applicant no. 2 against applicant nos.1, 5, 10 and 11, the FIR need not be quashed against them. 6. A bare perusal of first information report makes it clear that non-applicant no. 2, who is wife of applicant no. 11 Santosh has made serious allegations against him as well as against his father applicant no. 1, brother-in-law applicant no. 5 and applicant no. 10, the relative of applicants. The first information report however does not reveal any specific allegations against other applicants particularly the mother-in-law and sisters-in-law of non-applicant no. 2 and other brother-in-law. 7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and Others vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, (1992) SCC (Cri) 426, held that the High Court could exercise the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure if it is found that the offence registered against the accused cannot be made out even if the allegations made in the first information report are accepted at their face value. It is held that Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. 8. It is held that Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. 8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra and Another vs. State of U.P. and Another, 2012 All MR (Cri) 4059 (SC), held as under: “It is the well settled principle laid down in cases too numerous to mention, that if the FIR did not disclose the commission of an offence, the court would be justified in quashing the proceedings preventing the abuse of the process of law. Simultaneously, the courts are expected to adopt a cautions approach in matters of quashing specially in cases of matrimonial dispute whether the FIR in fact discloses commission of an offence by the relatives of the principal accused or the FIR prima facie discloses a case of over implication by involving the entire family of the accused at the instance of the complainant, who is out to settle her scores arising out of the teething problem or skirmish of domestic bickering while settling down in her new matrimonial surrounding.” 9. Under these circumstances, continuation of the proceedings against the applicants including mother-in-law and sisters-in-law, except applicant nos. 1, 5, 10 and 11, would be abuse of process of law. Hence, we proceed to pass the following order: ORDER (1) Criminal Application (APL) No. 539/2017 is partly allowed. (2) Except against applicant nos. 1, 5, 10 and 11, the impugned First Information Report No. 164/2017 dated 25.07.2017 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code registered against other applicants by non-applicant no. 1-Police Station Officer, Police Station, Mankapur, District-Nagpur and the further proceedings emanating from the said first information report are hereby quashed and set aside.