JUDGMENT : A.P. THAKER, J. 1. By filing this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicants-original accused have prayed to quash and set aside the FIR being I-C.R.No.118/2015 registered with Kalol City Police Station dated 18.10.2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 379 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. There were disputes between husband-respondent no.2 and wife-petitioner no.1 and, therefore, petitioner no.1 has filed a complaint before Kalol Police Station on 29.4.2015 and has also filed a civil suit being Regular Civil Suit No.79 of 2015 with a prayer to restrain respondent no.2 from taking unlawful possession of the house situated at Kalol and she has also filed a complaint for domestic violence against respondent no.2 before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kalol, dated 17.7.2015. According to the petitioners, petitioner no.1 is wife of respondent no.2 and petitioner nos.2 and 3 are son and daughter, while petitioner no.4 is son-in-law of respondent no.2. It is contended that there are serious disputes between petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2, as respondent no.2 was having illicit relation with one Sitarakhan and due to that respondent no.2 was harassing petitioner no.1 as he wanted to marry said Sitarakhan. When petitioner no.1 could not tolerate such harassment, she filed a complaint against respondent no.2 on 29.4.2015. Thereafter, respondent no.2 threatened to cut off gas and electricity connection from the house, as he is the owner of the house, therefore, petitioner no.1 filed Regular Civil Suit No.79 of 2015 before Civil Court, Kalol on 30.4.2015. It is stated that as there were serious disputes between the parties, respondent no.2 gave a public notice on 3.6.2015 in Gujarat Samachar regarding loss of his important documents and also stating that he is not having any relations with his son, petitioner no.2 herein. Thereafter, petitioner no.1 had given a complaint under the Domestic Violence Act. Thereafter, with a view to take revenge, respondent no.2 has filed a false complaint against all the petitioners. It is also contended that there is a delay of five month in filing of alleged FIR and no specific allegations are made against any of the petitioners as regards missing documents and there are general allegations. Thereafter, with a view to take revenge, respondent no.2 has filed a false complaint against all the petitioners. It is also contended that there is a delay of five month in filing of alleged FIR and no specific allegations are made against any of the petitioners as regards missing documents and there are general allegations. It is pointed out that daughter and son-in-law are living in Kerala since 13 years and they had come for a short vacation of 10 to 12 days and they are falsely implicated in the alleged FIR and petitioner no.2 is also wrongly implicated as an accused. It is contended that respondent no.2 was having illicit relationship and he wanted to marry another lady, for which the petitioner is not ready. It is also contended that respondent no.2 has given public notice clearly stating to the effect that he has no relation with petitioner no.2. It is also contended that missing documents as alleged in the FIR are public documents, which can easily be recovered from the government and semi-government office and the same are not in any way helpful to the petitioner. It is also contended that no ingredients of the offence of theft are made out in the FIR and from the allegations made in the FIR and none of the petitioners are likely to be convicted at all. On this ground it is prayed by the petitioners that the impugned FIR may be quashed and set aside. 3. Respondent no.2 has filed his affidavit-in-reply denying all the allegations made in the petition regarding second wife. According to him, all the family members are original residents of Kerala and, due to business, he has settled at Kalol and is having residence at Kalol and one portion of his house is being used for residential purpose and the other portion is used for business purpose. He has also contended that his wife was staying at native place along with children from last 13 years, meanwhile, his daughter got married with petitioner no.4, who is also a resident of Kerala. According to him, petitioner no.2, his son-Aneesh, wanted to get employment and, therefore, he called his son from the native place to Kalol almost one and a half years ago and gave him job in his office and he was looking after paper work of the office and was learning the business. According to him, petitioner no.2, his son-Aneesh, wanted to get employment and, therefore, he called his son from the native place to Kalol almost one and a half years ago and gave him job in his office and he was looking after paper work of the office and was learning the business. According to him, his wife along with his Aneesh came in the month of December 2014 and his son started giving him threats that he would transfer all the properties in his name. 4. According to him, he wanted to make his son partner in the business and has also purchased one flat at Kalol by sale deed dated 30.12.2014 and, thereafter, his son and wife left Kalol on 29.1.2015 and went to Kerala. It is his version that on 14.3.2015, his son again came to Kalol and, at that time, his behaviour was totally different and he started giving threats and he called his mother also at Kalol in April 2015. Due to this threat respondent no.2 was compelled to leave his house and started staying at a hotel and was attending his office. It is also submitted that he went to Kerala on 2nd May 2015 and came back on 24th May 2015 and when he came back and went to his office, he found that lock of steel cupboard, table, office door etc. were open and on searching he found that many documents, registers etc. were missing and an amount of Rs.12,600/-, which was lying in the cupboard, was stolen. According to him, on analyzing the missing articles, documents and files, he came to know that 23 various articles were stolen and, therefore, he approached police authorities but his complaint was not registered and no action was taken by the authority till 30.7.2015 and, therefore, he filed Special Criminal Application No.4575 of 2015 before this Court, which came to be disposed of vide order dated 3.8.2015 directing to register the FIR, therefore, the FIR came to be registered at Kalol City Police Station for the alleged offence under Sections 379 read with Section 114 of the IPC on 18.10.2019. 5. According to him, prima facie case is made out against the petitioners and, he has denied the allegations of adultery with Sitarakhan. 5. According to him, prima facie case is made out against the petitioners and, he has denied the allegations of adultery with Sitarakhan. According to him, theft of documents and other material has taken place in furtherance of common object of the petitioners of snatching away the property of respondent no.2. He has also stated that the civil suit is filed against him, wherein stay application has been rejected by the trial Court. He has also stated that being Muslim there is no bar on second marriage and, therefore, there is no reason as to why somebody would indulge in illicit relationship. According to him, when he was out of Gujarat, at that time, theft was committed and, on this ground, he has prayed to dismiss the petition. 6. Heard learned advocate, Mr.Hardik Barot for the applicants and Ms.Moxa Thakkar, learned APP for the respondent-State and Mr.Ramnandansingh, learned advocate for respondent no.2 at length and perused the materials placed on record. 7. Mr.Hardik Barot, learned advocate for the petitioners has submitted the same facts, which are narrated in the memo of petition and, while referring to various documents produced on record, he has vehemently submitted that as petitioner no.1 has not given consent to the respondent for extra-marital relation, he was harassing the petitioner no.1 and, therefore, petitioner no.1 has filed complaint for domestic violence and has instituted Civil Suit for injunction. He has also stated that the impugned complaint has been filed after delay of five months and the complainant has also issued public notice regarding loss of certain documents relating to his vehicle and intimating the public at large that he is not having any relation with his son, Aneesh-petitioner no.2. He has submitted that this is nothing but an abuse of process of law and no ingredients of theft can be said to have been made out from the impugned FIR. He has also contended that respondent nos.3 and 4 are residents of Kerala and, they came here only for 10 to 12 days and their names have been implicated in the complaint. He, therefore, requested to quash the complaint. 8. Ms.Moxa Thakkar, learned APP appearing for the respondent-State has submitted that investigation is stayed by this Court. She has contended that some disputes are going on between the parties, for which legal proceedings are pending. He, therefore, requested to quash the complaint. 8. Ms.Moxa Thakkar, learned APP appearing for the respondent-State has submitted that investigation is stayed by this Court. She has contended that some disputes are going on between the parties, for which legal proceedings are pending. She has prayed this Court to pass appropriate order in the facts and circumstances of this case. 9. Mr.Ramnandan Singh, learned advocate for respondent no.2 has submitted the same facts, which are narrated in the affidavit and has stated that son and wife of the complainant-respondent no.2 have tried to snatch away the property of the complainant by stealing the documents, which pertain to the books of account of the business. He also contended that the petitioners are residing at Kerala and they were brought by the complainant with a view to see that career of his son is brought on track. He submitted that there is no extra-marital relation of the complainant with anyone. He also contended that even for registration of FIR, the complainant was required to move this Court by filing Special Criminal Application No.4575 of 2015 and after passing of order therein, the complaint is registered and investigation was to be carried out. He submitted that investigation may not be stalled and during investigation if it is found that no offence is committed, then the petitioners will not be arrested and it is not likely to prejudicially affect the petitioners. In view of this, he prayed that FIR may not be quashed at this stage and the present application may be dismissed. 10. It is settled law that for considering the petition under Section 482 of the Code, it is necessary to consider as to whether the allegations in the complaint prima facie make out a case or not and the Court is not to scrutinies the allegations for the purpose of deciding whether such allegations are likely to be upheld in trial. It is also well settled that though the High Court possesses inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code, these powers are meant to do real and substantial justice, for the administration of which alone it exists or to prevent abuse of the process of the court. The Supreme Court, time and again, has observed that extraordinary power should be exercised sparingly and with great care and caution. The Supreme Court, time and again, has observed that extraordinary power should be exercised sparingly and with great care and caution. The High Court would be justified in exercising the said power when it is imperative to exercise the same in order to prevent injustice. 11. The High Court, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is required to examine whether the averments in the complaint constitute the ingredients necessary for an offence alleged under the Penal Code. If the averments taken on their face do not constitute the ingredients necessary for the offence, the criminal proceedings may be quashed under Section 482. A criminal proceeding can be quashed where the allegations made in the complaint do not disclose the commission of an offence under the Penal Code. The complaint must be examined as a whole, without evaluating the merits of the allegations. Though the law does not require that the complaint reproduce the legal ingredients of the offence verbatim, the complaint must contain the basic facts necessary for making out an offence under the Penal Code. 12. A court exercising its inherent jurisdiction must examine if on their face, the averments made in the complaint constitute the ingredients necessary for the offence. 13. Having heard learned advocates for the parties and considering the material placed on record, it appears that, in the impugned FIR, it is alleged that the alleged offence of theft has happened during the period from 22.4.2015 till 25.5.2015. From the order dated 3.8.2015 passed by this Court in Special Criminal Application No.4575 of 2015, it appears that the respondent no.2 herein has lodged the complaint before police on 30.5.2015. This shows that the complainant has moved the complaint instantly, however, police has not recorded the same and it was recorded only after the order of this Court. Thereafter, the investigation has been stayed by this Court by order dated 4.11.2015 passed in this matter. 14. From the material available on record, in the form of earlier complaint given by petitioner no.1, civil suit filed against respondent no.2 and a complaint filed for domestic violence, it is clear that relations between the petitioner no.1 and the complainant-respondent no.2 herein are strain. There is no specific allegation against petitioner no.1-wife with regard to the offence in question. From the material available on record, in the form of earlier complaint given by petitioner no.1, civil suit filed against respondent no.2 and a complaint filed for domestic violence, it is clear that relations between the petitioner no.1 and the complainant-respondent no.2 herein are strain. There is no specific allegation against petitioner no.1-wife with regard to the offence in question. It also appears from the record that petitioner nos.3 and 4 are residents of Kerala and they had come during vacation. So far as petitioner no.2-son of respondent no.2 is concerned, it is alleged that he was attending the office of respondent no.2 and he was also giving threats to respondent no.2 for snatching away his property. Even in the public notice issued by respondent no.2 it is stated that he has no relation with his son-Aneesh. In view of above, it seems that complaint in question is filed against petitioner nos.1, 3 and 4 only with a view to harass them. 15. It also appears that to find out the truth regarding the allegations made in the complaint, the same is required to be investigated. At the same time, so far as petitioner nos.3 and 4 are concerned, they are residents of Kerala and they had come here during vacation, therefore, it seems that they have been wrongly roped in. Not only that so far as petitioner no.1 is concerned, there is no specific role alleged against her and due to strain relations, she has been roped in. In view of this, in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the impugned FIR is required to be quashed so far as petitioner nos.1, 3 and 4 are concerned. 16. In view of above discussion, present application is partly allowed. The impugned FIR being C.R.No.I-118/2015 registered with Kalol City Police Station dated 18.10.2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 379 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and all other consequential proceedings arising out of the same are quashed and set aside so far as present applicant nos.1, 3 and 4 concerned. However, the impugned complaint and all other consequential proceedings may continue so far as petitioner no.2 is concerned. Rule is made absolute to the above extent.