JUDGMENT The petitioners Nos. 1 and 3 are parents-in-law and petitioner No. 2 is the sister-in-law of the complainant/respondent No. 2. They have filed the instant petition under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter for short, Cr.P.C) seeking quashment of FIR No. 19/2018, Police Station, Basantgarh District Udhampur. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners stated that there is nothing against the petitioners in the aforesaid FIR No. 19/2018, but police has registered the case against them. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that proforma- respondent No. 3-Mohd. Iqbal who is the son of the petitioners 1 and 3 and brother of petitioners No. 2 is serving in the Army and is posted in very sensitive area. In June 2018, proforma respondent came home on leave for some days and went to the house of his in-laws to bring the respondent No. 2-Mst. Maroofa Kousar to his home, where he was told that since the father of the respondent No. 2 is not at home and on his return she will be sent to the house of the petitioners. It is stated that instead of coming back to her matrimonial fold, the respondent No. 2 under a calculated move, entirely on concocted and scripted fiction story, filed a complaint against the petitioners and proforma respondent No. 3, before the Police Station, Basantgarh. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contends that in the said complaint there is nothing against the petitioners and police has illegally involved them into the aforesaid offences. 5. Complainant -respondent No. 2 has filed objections. 6. In the objections, it is stated that the petitioners have filed instant petition on mis-stated and concocted facts; that complainant-respondent No. 2 stayed in the shared household and it is misstated that she went to her paternal home soon. She stayed there and was forced to work even at the time when she was not well and the proforma respondent- her husband never bothered to care about her health. The further stand taken is that complainant-respondent No. 2 has been suffering physical and mental abuse, pain, helplessness, unhappiness and anger on account of the son of petitioners No. 1 and 3 and his family. 7. I have heard counsel for parties and gone through the law on the subjects. Law with regard to inherent power of High court has now been well settled. 7. I have heard counsel for parties and gone through the law on the subjects. Law with regard to inherent power of High court has now been well settled. In the case titled State of Telangana v Habib Abdullah Jeelani & ors., AIR 2017 SC 37 it is held as under:- “11. Once an FIR is registered, the accused persons can always approach the High Court under Section 482 CrPC or under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing of the FIR. In Bhajan Lal (supra) the two-Judge Bench after referring to Hazari Lal Gupta v. Rameshwar Prasad [7], Jehan Singh v. Delhi Administration [8], Amar Nath v. State of Haryana [9], Kurukshetra University v. State of Haryana [10], State of Bihar v. J.A.C. Saldanha[11], State of West Bengal v. Swapan Kumar Guha[12], Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi [13], Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre [14], State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan[15] and some other authorities that had dealt with the contours of exercise of inherent powers of the High Court, thought it appropriate to mention certain category of cases by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution or inherent power under Section 482 CrPC could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The Court also observed that it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelized and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad cases wherein such power should be exercised. The illustrations given by the Court need to be recapitulated:- “(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” It is worthy to note that the Court has clarified that the said parameters or guidelines are not exhaustive but only illustrative. Nevertheless, it throws light on the circumstances and situations where court’s inherent power can be exercised. 12. There can be no dispute over the proposition that inherent power in a matter of quashment of FIR has to be exercised sparingly and with caution and when and only when such exercise is justified by the test specifically laid down in the provision itself. There is no denial of the fact that the power under Section 482 CrPC is very wide but it needs no special emphasis to state that conferment of wide power requires the court to be more cautious. There is no denial of the fact that the power under Section 482 CrPC is very wide but it needs no special emphasis to state that conferment of wide power requires the court to be more cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the Court.” 8. As per above law, a complaint/FIR is liable to be quashed, if it does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. 9. A perusal of the FIR reveals that the allegations against the petitioners and proforma respondent are that complainant lodged a written complaint before the Police Station, Basantgarh stating therein that she was married to proforma respondent one year ago; that behaviour of her husband was not cordial with her; that her husband is in Army and whenever he came to home, he used to tease her with regard to demand of dowry; that on 05.05.2019 at about 10/11 night the husband of complainant in a criminal conspiracy with the petitioners locked the complainant in a room in their house and thereafter her husband started beating her with fists and blows and also abused her. Complainant was threatened that if she narrates this occurrence to her parents, proforma respondent will kill them and will join his duty; that in the morning he informed her parents on telephone that her husband has locked her in a room, her mother came and brought her out of the room; that due to beating she was unable to walk. On the basis of this complaint police registered an FIR No. 19/2018 for offences under section 498-A 342/323/504/506/109 RPC against the petitioners and respondent no.3 (husband of the reads as under : 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 her to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term, which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to a fine. Whoever being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects her to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term, which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to a fine. Explanation–for the purpose 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 demands for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.” 12. The section was enacted to combat the menace of dowry deaths. Section 114-C has been added to the Evidence Act to raise presumption regarding abetment of suicide by married woman. The main objective of section 498-A of R.P.C is to protect a woman who is being harassed by her husband or relatives of husband. 13. In Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2014 (8) SCC 273 , the Supreme Court had held: “4. There is a phenomenal increase in matrimonial disputes in recent years. The institution of marriage is greatly revered in this country. Section 498-A IPC was introduced with avowed object to combat the menace of harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband and his relatives. The fact that Section 498-A IPC is a cognizable and non-bailable offence has lent it a dubious place of pride amongst the provisions that are used as weapons rather than shield by disgruntled wives. The simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his relatives arrested under this provision. In a quite number of cases, bedridden grandfathers and grandmothers of the husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested.” 14. Applying the law to the facts of the case, and going through the allegations leveled in the FIR, it is evident that there are specific allegations against husband –proforma- respondent, but that so far as remaining petitioners who are parents’ in-law and sister in law are concerned, there are no specific and credible allegations. Applying the law to the facts of the case, and going through the allegations leveled in the FIR, it is evident that there are specific allegations against husband –proforma- respondent, but that so far as remaining petitioners who are parents’ in-law and sister in law are concerned, there are no specific and credible allegations. Only omnibus allegations shorn of even basic details have been leveled; only allegation is that husband in conspiracy with petitioners has lodged the complainant-Maroofa Kousar in a room and beaten her; so they should not be made to undergo the rigmarole of a criminal proceedings. 15. Accordingly, in exercise of its extra-ordinary power reserved under Section 561-A reserved under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, I hereby quash the first information report registered by Police Station Basant Garh in FIR No. 19/2018 for offences under section 498-A /342 /323 /504 /506 /109 RPC against petitioners ; rest police shall investigate the allegation leveled against proforma respondent-husband as per the provision of law 16. This petition is disposed of. Copy be sent to concerned Police. Rashid Ali Dar, J.—This judgment is pronounced by me, in terms of Rule 138(3) of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court Rules, 1999.