ORDER : By way of instant petition, a prayer has been made to quash FIR No. 2 of 2020, dated 05.01.2020, registered at Women Police Station, Solan, under Section 498-A read with Section 34 IPC (for short, “the FIR”). 2. The basis of FIR is written complaint dated 28.12.2019 submitted by Respondent No.2 inter-alia alleging her ill-treatment at the hands of petitioners and Shri Vinay Agarwal, the brother of petitioner No.1. Respondent No.2 is the wife of petitioner No.1. Petitioners No. 2 and 3 are her father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively. 3. Petitioners have alleged their false implication in the FIR. It is submitted that the allegations levelled by respondent No.2 against them are baseless. They have always treated respondent No.2 with dignity, love and affection. It is further submitted that petitioners have never made any demand for dowry from respondent No.2 or her parents. Respondent No.2 has never been ill-treated. Petitioners have also alleged that respondent No.2 and her family members had made suppression of material facts relating to health issues of respondent No.2 before marriage. It was noticed after marriage that respondent No.2 had some serious issue with her eye. It was respondent No.2 and her father, who have aggressively and abusively disrespected the family of petitioners. Respondent No.2 had always been threatening to commit suicide for no reason whatsoever. It is also alleged against respondent No.2 that she had left matrimonial house of her own along with all her belongings. Petitioners were not properly invited to attend the marriage of brother of respondent No.2. Petitioners, in support of averments made in the petition, have placed on record various documents, on the basis of which the allegations levelled by respondent No.2 are stated to be false and concocted. 4. Respondent No.1-State in its reply has submitted that the written complaint No. PC/1028/SP was received in Women Police Station, Solan on 30.12.2019. The complaint contained allegations of harassment of respondent No.2 at the hands of Shri Raghav Aggarwal (husband), Shri Arvind Gupta (father-in-law), Smt. Nisha Gupta (mother-in-law) and Sh. Vinay Aggarwal (brother- in-law). Resultantly, FIR No. 2/2020 was registered on 05.01.2020. Investigation is stated to be underway. It is alleged that despite various efforts, the investigating agency has not been able to associate the petitioners and other accused persons in investigation. 5. Respondent No.2 has filed her separate reply. Vinay Aggarwal (brother- in-law). Resultantly, FIR No. 2/2020 was registered on 05.01.2020. Investigation is stated to be underway. It is alleged that despite various efforts, the investigating agency has not been able to associate the petitioners and other accused persons in investigation. 5. Respondent No.2 has filed her separate reply. It is submitted on behalf of said respondent that the FIR was registered after thorough examination of written complaint and recording her statement. It is further submitted that the petitioners and other accused in the FIR have not joined the investigation. The petition is alleged to be abuse of process of law. Respondent No.2 has placed reliance on the allegations levelled by her in the complaint and consequent FIR. As per respondent No.2, the petitioners are intentionally and deliberately avoiding the joining of investigation and the instant petition is also step in such direction. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the entire record. 7. Petitioners have invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Though, this Court is vested with jurisdiction and powers under the aforesaid provisions of law to prevent the abuse of process of law or otherwise to secure the ends of justice but the same has to be used sparingly and only in appropriate cases. 8. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat & Ors reported in (2018)3 SCC 104 has outlined the powers of this Court to quash the FIR in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in following manner: - “25. The law on the question as to when a registration of the FIR is challenged seeking its quashing by the accused under Article 226 of the Constitution or Section 482 of the Code and what are the powers of the High Court and how the High Court should deal with such question is fairly well settled. 26. This Court in State of West Bengal & Ors. vs. Swapan Kumar Guha & Ors. ( AIR 1982 SC 949 ) had the occasion to deal with this issue. Y.V. Chandrachud, the learned Chief Justice speaking for Three Judge Bench laid down the following principle: “21......the condition precedent to the commencement of investigation under S.157 of the Code is that the F.I.R. must disclose, prima facie, that a cognizable offence has been committed. ( AIR 1982 SC 949 ) had the occasion to deal with this issue. Y.V. Chandrachud, the learned Chief Justice speaking for Three Judge Bench laid down the following principle: “21......the condition precedent to the commencement of investigation under S.157 of the Code is that the F.I.R. must disclose, prima facie, that a cognizable offence has been committed. It is wrong to suppose that the police have an unfettered discretion to commence investigation under S.157 of the Code. Their right of inquiry is conditioned by the existence of reason to suspect the commission of a cognizable offence and they cannot, reasonably, have reason so to suspect unless the F.I.R., prima facie, discloses the commission of such offence. If that condition is satisfied, the investigation must go on. The Court has then no power to stop the investigation, for to do so would be to trench upon the lawful power of the police to investigate into cognizable offences 66. Whether an offence has been disclosed or not must necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each particular case. If on a consideration of the relevant materials, the Court is satisfied that an offence is disclosed, the Court will normally not interfere with the investigation into the offence and will generally allow the investigation in the offence to be completed for collecting materials for proving the offence.” 27. Keeping in view the aforesaid principle of law, which was consistently followed by this Court in later years and on perusing the impugned judgment, we are constrained to observe that the High Court without any justifiable reason devoted 89 pages judgment (see-paper book) to examine the aforesaid question and then came to a conclusion that some part of the FIR in question is bad in law because it does not disclose any cognizable offence against any of the accused persons whereas only a part of the FIR is good which discloses a prima facie case against the accused persons and hence it needs further investigation to that extent in accordance with law. 28 In doing so, the High Court, in our view, virtually decided all the issues arising out of the case like an investigating authority or/and appellate authority decides, by little realizing that it was exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code at this stage. 29. 28 In doing so, the High Court, in our view, virtually decided all the issues arising out of the case like an investigating authority or/and appellate authority decides, by little realizing that it was exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code at this stage. 29. The High Court, in our view, failed to see the extent of its jurisdiction, which it possesses to exercise while examining the legality of any FIR complaining commission of several cognizable offences by accused persons. In order to examine as to whether the factual contents of the FIR disclose any prima facie cognizable offences or not, the High Court cannot act like an investigating agency and nor can exercise the powers like an appellate Court. The question, in our opinion, was required to be examined keeping in view the contents of the FIR and prima facie material, if any, requiring no proof. 30. At this stage, the High Court could not appreciate the evidence nor could draw its own inferences from the contents of the FIR and the material relied on. It was more so when the material relied on was disputed by the Complainants and vica-a-versa. In such a situation, it becomes the job of the investigating authority at such stage to probe and then of the Court to examine the questions once the charge sheet is filed along with such material as to how far and to what extent reliance can be placed on such material. 31. In our considered opinion, once the Court finds that the FIR does disclose prima facie commission of any cognizable offence, it should stay its hand and allow the investigating machinery to step in to initiate the probe to unearth the crime in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the Code. 32. The very fact that the High Court in this case went into the minutest details in relation to every aspect of the case and devoted 89 pages judgment to quash the FIR in part lead us to draw a conclusion that the High Court had exceeded its powers while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. We cannot concur with such approach of the High Court. 33. We cannot concur with such approach of the High Court. 33. The inherent powers of the High Court, which are obviously not defined being inherent in its very nature, cannot be stretched to any extent and nor can such powers be equated with the appellate powers of the High Court defined in the Code. The parameters laid down by this Court while exercising inherent powers must always be kept in mind else it would lead to committing the jurisdictional error in deciding the case. Such is the case here” 9. Reverting to the facts of the case, it will be relevant to notice that the allegations levelled by the respondent No.2 in her complaint to the police and resultant FIR are as under: A. Respondent No.2 has alleged that behaviour of the petitioners has been insulting and humiliating towards her and her family members right from the very beginning of her married life. Despite invitation, none from the family of her husband had attended the marriage reception hosted by her father at Solan on 22.07.2018. Similarly, same treatment was given by the petitioners when they were invited for “Bhandara” (community lunch) organized by the father of respondent No.2 in the temple of “Shoolini Devi” on 12.08.2018. Respondent No.2 had to attend the said occasion alone and it had become difficult for her to answer the queries of her relatives and friends with respect to absence of her in-laws. B. Respondent No.2 was not provided with even basic amenities in her matrimonial home. Despite her repeated requests, the attitude of petitioner No.1 and other petitioners did not change. C. Petitioners always insisted upon respondent no.2 to ask her parents to honour them with costly gifts. She was always ridiculed and belittled by commenting upon the gifts tendered by her parents being of inferior quality. D. Further, the allegations of respondent No.2 are that most of her jewelry has been unlawfully kept by the petitioners and despite her demands, it was not being handed over to her. Respondent No.2 has specifically alleged that on 15.09.2019 a meeting was organized between both the families to reconcile the dispute but after the meeting petitioner No.2 had categorically asked the father of respondent No.2 that he would have to pay Rs.30 lacs as dowry, in case he wanted his daughter to live with the petitioners. Respondent No.2 has specifically alleged that on 15.09.2019 a meeting was organized between both the families to reconcile the dispute but after the meeting petitioner No.2 had categorically asked the father of respondent No.2 that he would have to pay Rs.30 lacs as dowry, in case he wanted his daughter to live with the petitioners. E. It is also alleged against the petitioners that as part of conspiracy, all of them left India without respondent No.2 in order to evade the consequence of their illegal acts. 10. Thus, respondent No.2 has made specific allegations against the petitioners which prima facie are sufficient to constitute offence under Section 498-A of the IPC. On the other hand, the petitioners have narrated different facts in the petition in their defence. That being so, this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., will not venture into the merits of the allegations and counter allegations, which is the domain of the investigating agency. The defence, if any, available to the petitioners cannot be set up as a plea for quashing of proceedings. This Court has restrictive jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., only to stop the abuse of process of law and save the interest of justice. 11. The vestment of inherent powers in this Court under the aforesaid provisions of law cannot be stretched to any extent and at least cannot be equated with the Appellate powers of this Court. Once this Court has found that the FIR does disclose prima facie commission of offence under Section 498-A of the IPC, the investigating agency cannot be stopped from probing the truth of allegations and counter allegations in accordance with procedure prescribed in the Cr.P.C. 12. Allegations level by respondent No.2 against the petitioner are specific and cannot be said to be general, vague or omnibus. 13. In the light of above discussion, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed accordingly. All pending applications also stand disposed of.