JUDGMENT : P.N. Deshmukh, J. 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent. 2. This application is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of F.I.R. No.370 of 2017, dt.17.6.2017 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 504 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and consequent proceedings arising out of the same being Regular Criminal Case No.678 of 2018 pending on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.7, Nagpur. 3. Heard Mr.Rajnish Vyas, learned Counsel for the applicants and Mr. S.A. Ashirgade, learned Additional Public Prosecution for respondent no.1/State. Respondent no.2 though served, inspite of granting opportunity to defend the application, she did not choose to defend the same. Learned Counsel for the applicants has not pressed this application for applicant no.1, who is husband of respondent no.2. As such, we have considered the same for applicant nos. 2 to 5. Applicant nos.2 and 3 are father and mother respectively of applicant no.1, applicant no.4 is sister of applicant no.1 whereas applicant no.5 is husband of applicant no.4. Mr.Rajnish Vyas, learned Counsel for the applicants submitted that the averments made in the F.I.R. and final report would clearly reveal that the same are omnibus and without any reference to date and time. The allegations are exaggerated, which fail to disclose commission of any cognizable offence. That being so, the F.I.R. and final report are liable to be quashed and set aside. 4. It is submitted that Criminal prosecution is striking example of arm twisting tactics. Though applicant nos. 4 and 5 are residing separately as a married couple since 2004, they have been joined as accused only with a view to pressurize the applicants to pay huge amount of maintenance. Thus, criminal law was set in motion not with a view to punish the guilty, but to pressurize the innocent. It is, therefore, prayed that the material collected during the course of investigation since fail to attract ingredients of offence registered against the applicants, wherefrom no involvement of any of the applicants is established even prima facie, the proceedings initiated as aforesaid against the applicants are liable to be quashed and set aside and thus, the application be allowed. 5. As against this, Mr. 5. As against this, Mr. S.A. Ashirgade, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that involvement of all the applicants in present crime is established from the report as well as the additional statements of respondent no.2 wherefrom it is established that she was subjected to ill-treatment and harassment immediately after her marriage with applicant no.1, whose statements are further corroborated by her parents and other relatives. It is, therefore, submitted that since there is ample evidence against the applicants to frame charge, the application be rejected. 6. While considering this application, brief facts involved therein are required to be placed which are that marriage between applicant no.1 and respondent no.2 was solemnized on 25.11.2016 at Nagpur and thereafter, respondent no.2 started residing with applicant nos. 2 and 3 and her husband at Mumbai. Marriage of applicant no.4, sister of applicant no.1, is admittedly solemnized much prior to marriage of Complainant and since her marriage with applicant no.5 in the year 2004, she is residing at Thane. It is case of the applicants that, as respondent no.2, after her marriage, could not adjust with her husband and in-laws, she lodged report on 17.6.2017 alleging that, within one week from her marriage with applicant no.1, she was subjected to ill-treatment on the count of monetary demand and on nonpayment of the same, was subjected to abuses and that, from 7.12.2016 till 8.4.2016, was provided mental harassment, due to which she returned back to Nagpur and stayed at her parental home till 9.6.2017, during which period she was telephonically contacted by applicants and was provided mental harassment. F.I.R. lodged by Complainant is to above effect and on perusal of the same, it is worth to mention that though she claims ill-treatment within one week of her marriage with applicant no.1, the allegations are made against her husband only. So far as allegations against applicant nos. 2 to 5 are concerned, general statement is made involving her in-laws as well as applicant nos. 4 and 5 that they too provided her ill-treatment during the period from 7.12.2016 to 8.4.2016, which contents of report so far as applicant nos. 4 and 5 are concerned, does not appear to be true since, admittedly, they got married in the year 2004 i.e. much prior to Complainant's marriage with applicant no.1 and since then she is residing separately at Thane. 4 and 5 are concerned, does not appear to be true since, admittedly, they got married in the year 2004 i.e. much prior to Complainant's marriage with applicant no.1 and since then she is residing separately at Thane. Moreover, the allegations against said respondent nos.4 and 5 as well as against Complainant's in-laws are general in nature and vague as what is stated is that, during stay of Complainant at Mumbai, all the applicants caused mental ill-treatment to her and thereafter, when she left Mumbai and came to Nagpur on 8.4.2017 and was at Nagpur till 9.6.2017, was provided ill-treatment telephonically, which contents of report also does not attract ingredients of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. 7. We have perused the charge-sheet. Additional statement of Complainant recorded eight days after lodging of report also reveals the allegations against respondent nos. 2 and 3 of providing her ill-treatment on the say of applicant no.1, her husband and vague allegations against applicant no.5 alleging that, on one occasion when Complainant returned from her job at 9.30 in the night, said applicant by calling her on phone insisted her to meet him. Further contents of additional statement also mainly revolve against applicant no.1/husband. 8. Apart from report and additional statements of Complainant, other statements recorded during the course of investigation are of parents of Complainant, her cousin brother and sister. However, none of these statements establish involvement of any of the applicants to have provided ill-treatment to Complainant as contemplated within the meaning of ingredients of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Moreover, statements of witnesses appears to be contrary to the events stated therein with regard to Complainant's request to her relations to accompany her to meet applicant nos. 2 and 3 on their coming to Complainant's relative at Manewada, where Complainant's parents were called. When her father was unable to go due to ill-health and thus, her cousin brothers and her sister stated that they were requested by her mother to accompany her to Manewada. Said contents from statements are not found corroborated by mother of Complainant. Though she refers to such visit of applicant nos. 2, 3 and 5 to Manewada, her statement is silent about her requesting to Complainant's brother or sister to accompany her. Said contents from statements are not found corroborated by mother of Complainant. Though she refers to such visit of applicant nos. 2, 3 and 5 to Manewada, her statement is silent about her requesting to Complainant's brother or sister to accompany her. Having considering the available material against the applicants, it clearly reveals that the applicants have made out a case for quashing of proceedings initiated against them. 9. In view of no evidence available against the applicants, though one of the grounds put forth on behalf of applicants is that, from the F.I.R. since not a single act is alleged to have been committed at Nagpur, no report could have been registered at Nagpur and consequent investigation and filing of final report thereupon in a Court at Nagpur where no offence is committed is contrary to principles of Criminal jurisprudence and to the provisions of Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which mandates that every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. In that view of the matter and considering the nature of evidence against the applicant nos. 2 to 5, without going into this aspect, from the documents filed along with chargesheet since no case is made out against above applicants and as application for applicant no.1/husband is not pressed, without observing anything on merits on this part of the application, we find the application to be liable to be allowed as we are conscious of the fact that Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code was added to the Code with a view to punish the husband or any of his relatives, who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. Keeping the aforementioned object in mind, we have dealt with the matter and do not find any evidence establishing allegation of cruelty to Complainant within the meaning of Section 498A of Indian Penal Code. Extraordinary power under Article 226 or inherent power under Section 482 of Code can be exercised by High Court, either to prevent abuse of process of court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Extraordinary power under Article 226 or inherent power under Section 482 of Code can be exercised by High Court, either to prevent abuse of process of court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Where allegations made in First Information Report/complaint or outcome of investigation as found in charge sheet, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out case against accused; or where allegations do not disclose ingredients of offence alleged; or where uncontroverted allegations are made in F.I.R. or complaint and materials collected in support of same do not disclose commission of offence alleged and make out case against accused; or where criminal proceedings is found maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge, power under Article 226 of Constitution of India or Section 482 of Code may be exercised. 10. In the background of above facts, the allegations made in the report and the statements recorded during the course of investigation filed along with the chargesheet even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety as do not prima facie constitute any offence nor make out case against the applicant nos. 2 to 5 as allegations do not disclose the ingredients of offence alleged. In the circumstances, reference can be usefully made to the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court explained the circumstances under which the F.I.R. could be quashed and further explained that such power could be exercised where the allegations made in the F.I.R. 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. In para 102 of its Judgment, it is observed thus : “102. In para 102 of its Judgment, it is observed thus : “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (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. (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. (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." 11. In the backdrop of above pronouncement and the facts involved in the present application, since the allegations made are vague, no useful purpose will be served in continuing prosecution against the applicants. In the matter in hand, allegations made in the F.I.R. as well as material collected during the investigation, even after they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute any offence much less offence under Sections 498A and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. The proceedings initiated are, therefore, liable to be quashed and set aside. 12. Accordingly, we allow the application qua applicant nos.2 to 5 in terms of prayer clause (2) thereof.