JUDGMENT : A.S. SUPEHIA, J. 1. Learned advocate Mr. Samir Afzal does not press the present application so far as the applicant no. 1 is concerned, who is the husband of the complainant. The matter is confined to the rest of the applicants. 2. Rule. Learned APP waives service of rule for the respondent-State. 3. The present application has been filed seeking quashing of the F.I.R. registered at Shaher Kotada Police Station, District Ahmedabad, being C.R. No. I-220 of 2014 for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 294-B, 506(1) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “the IPC”) and under Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”). 4. At the outset, learned advocate Mr. Samir Afzal for the applicants has submitted that the applicant no. 1 is the husband of the complainant, applicant no. 2 is the father-in-law of the complainant, applicant no. 3 is the brother-in-law of the complainant, applicant no. 4 is the mother-in-law of the complainant, whereas the applicant no. 5 is the sister-in-law of the complainant, applicant no. 6 is the husband of sister-in-law, applicant no. 7 is the relative of the husband and applicant no. 8 is the relative of the husband are residing separately. 5. Learned advocate Mr. Samir Afzal for the applicants has submitted that the allegations in the impugned F.I.R. filed by the respondent no. 2-complainant do not disclose any offence against the applicants and is nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court. He has submitted that the respondent no. 2-complainant has filed the impugned F.I.R. to wreck vengeance, general and vague in nature and do not disclose specifically how the applicants have committed the offences alleged against them. He has also submitted that the contents of the impugned F.I.R. do not satisfy the ingredients of the offences allege against the applicants. He has further submitted that the applicant nos. 1 and 2 were residing separately in a rented house since last nine months and the house owner is also relative of the applicants. 6. Learned advocate Mr. Samir Afzal for the applicants has submitted that the applicant no. 3 is a minor and he is aged about 17 years, whereas the applicant nos. 5 and 6 are residing separately and they have two minor kids. 6. Learned advocate Mr. Samir Afzal for the applicants has submitted that the applicant no. 3 is a minor and he is aged about 17 years, whereas the applicant nos. 5 and 6 are residing separately and they have two minor kids. He has submitted that the applicant nos.7 and 8 are the distant relatives of the applicant no. 1 and they have no nexus at all with the private life of husband and wife, however, to implicate more and more accused, the respondent no. 2-complainant has involved them with no reasons and there are no direct allegations against them. He has further submitted that the applicant no. 4-mother of the applicant no. 1 has filed various applications against the respondent no. 2 and her father alleging harassment to them, hence the impugned F.I.R. has been filed. 7. Learned advocate Mr. Samir Afzal for the applicants has submitted that the respondent no. 2-complainant left the house of the husband at her own as she liked to enjoy free life and thereafter, she did not return to her matrimonial in spite of several efforts made by the applicant nos. 2 and 4. He has submitted that when the impugned F.I.R. was filed, on that day respondent no. 2 had come with 7-8 persons and had taken all her articles given at the time of marriage. He has also submitted that on the day of the incident, the father of respondent no. 2 and others have also threatened the applicant no. 1 and therefore, the applicant no. 1 filed a complaint to the same police station and informed to the control room. He has further submitted that since, it was matrimonial matter, the PSO of the concerned police station has not taken complaint of applicant no. 1, but in the evening the PSO has taken the complaint of respondent no. 2. 8. Learned advocate Mr. Samir Afzal for the applicants has submitted that the father of respondent no. 2, who used to serve in BSF, has misused his powers and the F.I.R. is filed with mala fide intention to harass the applicants. He has submitted that the impugned F.I.R. filed by respondent no. 2-complainant is calculated and well thought move just to harass the applicants. He has further submitted that the respondent no. 2 has falsely implicated the applicant nos. 2 to 8 to pressurize the applicant no. He has submitted that the impugned F.I.R. filed by respondent no. 2-complainant is calculated and well thought move just to harass the applicants. He has further submitted that the respondent no. 2 has falsely implicated the applicant nos. 2 to 8 to pressurize the applicant no. 1 to come to her terms. Thus, he has submitted that the impugned F.I.R. filed by the respondent no. 2 is clear abuse of process of the Court. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra and Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, (2012) 10 SCC 741 and in the case of Preeti Gupta and Another vs. State of Jharkhand and Another, (2017) 7 SCC 667. 9. Though served, respondent no. 2 has chosen not to appear before this Court either in person or through an advocate. 10. Learned APP Mr. Hardik Soni has submitted that the impugned F.I.R. may not be quashed and set aside since prima facie it appears that the offence has been established against present applicants and they are prima facie involved in the same. 11. I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. 12. It is alleged in the impugned F.I.R. by the complainant that her marriage was solemnized with the applicant no. 1 on 22.02.2012 and her in-laws used occasionally harass her. It is further alleged by the complainant that after her marriage, she was having cordial relationship for two months with her husband and thereafter, after two months, her in-laws started abusing her. It is narrated that her father-in-law used to consume liquor and also used to abuse her mother and father. It is further alleged that the applicants used to demand of dowry from her and his father had bought two auto rickshaws for doing business to the applicant no. 1-husband. Lastly, it is alleged in the impugned F.I.R. that she has informed her father on 25.09.2014 at night about the harassment and her father came to her matrimonial home and when her father had taken the articles, which were given in her marriage, at that time, the applicant no. 1 abused and threatened him and also called police and then, she went along with her father to the police station. 1 abused and threatened him and also called police and then, she went along with her father to the police station. Thus, she has stated that she was forced to lodged the present complaint after the aforesaid incident had happened. 13. It is not in dispute that the applicant no. 5 (sister-in-law), applicant no. 6 (husband of sister-in-law) and applicant nos. 7 and 8 (relatives of applicant no. 1-husband) are residing even separately before the marriage of the complainant. 14. The Apex Court in the case of Rashmi Chopra vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, AIR 2019 SC 2297 after observing as under has quashed the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 on the ground that the allegations were general and sweeping as no specific dates were mentioned: “24. Coming back to the allegations in the complaint pertaining to Section 498A and Section ¾ of D.P. Act. A perusal of the complaint indicates that the allegations against the appellants for offence under Section 498A and Section ¾ of D.P. Act are general and sweeping. No specific incident dates or details of any incident has been mentioned in the complaint. The complaint having been filed after proceeding for divorce was initiated by Nayan Chopra in State of Michigan, where Vanshika participated and divorce was ultimately granted. A few months after filing of the divorce petition, the complaint has been filed in the Court of C.J.M. Gautam Budh Nagar with the allegations as noticed above. The sequence of the events and facts and circumstances of the case leads us to conclude that the complaint under Section 498A and Section ¾ of D.P. Act have been filed as counter blast to divorce petition proceeding in State of Michigan by Nayan Chopra. 25. There being no specific allegation regarding any one of the applicants except common general allegation against everyone i.e. “they started harassing the daughter of the applicant demanding additional dowry of one crore” and the fact that all relatives of the husband, namely, father, mother, brother, mother’s sister and husband of mother’s sister have been roped in clearly indicate that application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed with a view to harass the applicants........” 15. The Supreme Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra and Another (supra) has observed about the tendency of unnecessarily involving the entire family members in F.I.R. filed for the offence under Section 498-A of the IPC: “19. Coming to the facts of this case, when the contents of the FIR is perused, it is apparent that there are no allegations against Kumari Geeta Mehrotra and Ramji Mehrotra except casual reference of their names who have been included in the FIR but mere casual reference of the names of the family members in a matrimonial dispute without allegation of active involvement in the matter would not justify taking cognizance against them overlooking the fact borne out of experience that there is a tendency to involve the entire family members of the household in the domestic quarrel taking place in a matrimonial dispute specially if it happens soon after the wedding. 20. It would be relevant at this stage to take note of an apt observation of this Court recorded in the matter of G.V. Rao vs. L.H.V. Prasad and Others, (2000) 3 SCC 693 wherein also in a matrimonial dispute, this Court had held that the High Court should have quashed the complaint arising out of a matrimonial dispute wherein all family members had been roped into the matrimonial litigation which was quashed and set aside. Their Lordships observed therein with which we entirely agree that: “There has been an outburst of matrimonial dispute in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate the disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their “young” days in chasing their cases in different courts.” The view taken by the judges in this matter was that the courts would not encourage such disputes. 21. In yet another case reported in AIR 2003 SC 1386 in the matter of B.S. Joshi and Others vs. State of Haryana and Another, it was observed that there is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XXA containing Section 498A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498A was added with a view to punish the husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. But if the proceedings are initiated by the wife under Section 498A against the husband and his relatives and subsequently she has settled her disputes with her husband and his relatives and the wife and husband agreed for mutual divorce, refusal to exercise inherent powers by the High Court would not be proper as it would prevent woman from settling earlier. Thus for the purpose of securing the ends of justice quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. It would however be a different matter depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether to exercise or not to exercise such a power.” 16. The Supreme Court in the case of Preeti Gupta and Another (supra) has observed thus: “The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a herculean task in majority of these complaints. The Supreme Court in the case of Preeti Gupta and Another (supra) has observed thus: “The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment of husband's close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complaint are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection. Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony and bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter of common knowledge that in cases filed by the complainant if the husband or the husband's relations had to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful.” 17. Thus, it appears that the other family members of the applicant no. 1 are unnecessary roped in by the respondent no. 2-complainant and there are casual references made by her without allegations of active involvement and no specific instances are narrated by the complainant. No specific details are stated in the complaint. The allegations against the applicant nos. 2 and 3, who are father-in-law and mother-in-law, are also general and vague and are bereft of specific instances. There is no active involvement established of the entire family members of the applicant no. 1 in making out cruelty from the contents of the F.I.R. 18. In light of the observations and the law enunciated by the Supreme Court, the present application is partly allowed. Impugned F.I.R. being C.R. No. I-220 of 2014 registered at Shaherkotada Police Station, District Ahmedabad, as well as all other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid F.I.R. are hereby quashed and set aside qua the applicant nos. 2 to 8. The trial shall proceed further as regards the applicant no. 1-husband. 19. Impugned F.I.R. being C.R. No. I-220 of 2014 registered at Shaherkotada Police Station, District Ahmedabad, as well as all other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid F.I.R. are hereby quashed and set aside qua the applicant nos. 2 to 8. The trial shall proceed further as regards the applicant no. 1-husband. 19. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service permitted. 20. In view of the order passed in the main matter, Criminal Misc. Application (for vacating interim relief) No. 1 of 2019 does not survive and the same is disposed of accordingly.