JUDGMENT : 1. By way of this application, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, applicants seek to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for quashing of private complaint being Criminal Case No.3304 of 2003 (New C.C.No.415 of 2013) filed by respondent no.2, for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 420, 406, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 5 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to file present application are that applicants are father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law of respondent no.2. The marriage of Rushilkumar Arvindkumar Trivedi-accused no.1 was solemnized on 29.05.2001 as per Hindu Rites and Rituals and thereafter, the complainant was residing at her matrimonial house. A private complaint has been filed on 03.12.2003, inter alia alleging that she had been subjected to physical and mental cruelty by the applicants and husband. It is alleged against the applicants that due to their instigation and support to the husband, she was beaten by the husband and he was demanding dowry as they want to purchase residential flat at Vidhyanagar, Anand. It is further alleged that, the applicants have illegally retained her ornaments and other things, whereby committed an offence of criminal breach of trust and cheating. In the aforesaid facts, a private complaint for the offences as referred above, is filed against the applicants and husband before the Magistrate Court, Petlad at Anand. Pursuant to the complaint, the Court has issued summons and accordingly, on 05.07.2006, charges came to be framed for the aforesaid offences. The husband – accused no.1 filed petition for divorce before the learned Senior Civil Court, Anand. During the pendency of the divorce petition (HMP No.63 of 2006), parties have settled the dispute amicably and executed a registered divorce deed and submitted an application for dissolution of marriage before the learned Civil Court. Pursuant to the compromise pursis Exh.12 dated 12.08.2006, the learned Civil Court dissolved the marriage and passed a decree of divorce. In view of the decree of dissolution of marriage, the complainant – respondent no.2 had performed the second marriage and since many years, she is residing at London and out of the said wedlock, a child has also been born. 3. In view of the decree of dissolution of marriage, the complainant – respondent no.2 had performed the second marriage and since many years, she is residing at London and out of the said wedlock, a child has also been born. 3. In the aforesaid facts, the husband and applicants moved an application at Exh.78 before the Magistrate Court at Petlad, inter alia stating that since 2003, the complainant was not remaining present as she is not interested to prosecute the applicants and therefore, due to non-appearance of the complainant, the applicants may be acquitted. The learned Trial Court, vide order dated 03.09.2009, dismissed the complaint for non-prosecution and acquitted the applicants for the offences. The wife – respondent no.2, aggrieved with the order, filed a Revision Application before the Court of Sessions at Anand, mainly on the ground that the learned Trial Court having no jurisdiction to pass an order under Section 256 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as the case is warrant triable case whereas Section 256 of the Cr.P.C. is applicable to the trial of summons cases. The learned Sessions Court, Anand, after hearing the parties, vide its order dated 04.04.2011, set aside the order of the learned Trial Court, acquitting the accused – applicants under Section 256 of the Cr.P.C. and directed the learned Trial Court to proceed with the case in accordance with law. 4. It is in the aforesaid context, the present application has been preferred by the applicants, alleging that the complaint has been filed with malafide and/or with an ulterior motive and the same is nothing but an amount of abuse of process of law, and therefore, it requires to be quashed and set aside. 5. Mr.H.L. Mahida, learned advocate for the applicants would submit that the applicant nos.1 and 2 are senior citizen, whereas applicant no.3 is living separately at her matrimonial home. 5. Mr.H.L. Mahida, learned advocate for the applicants would submit that the applicant nos.1 and 2 are senior citizen, whereas applicant no.3 is living separately at her matrimonial home. He would further submit that after filing of the complaint, parties have settled the dispute amicably and pursuant to the compromised, the learned Civil Court has drawn the decree of divorce and thereafter, she remarried to another person and since long, she is living at U.K. He would further submit that she has never attended the Court proceedings and each and every date, accused were remained present and when the Court has dismissed the complaint from non-prosecution, she has intentionally challenged the order of the Trial Court which conduct shows that the complaint has been filed with oblique motive and to harass the applicants. He would further submit that even on merits, the allegations levelled in the FIR are general and vague, which do not disclose the cognizable offence and do not prima facie constitute an offence of cruelty and demand of dowry. 6. In the aforesaid contentions, learned advocate for the applicants would submit that this is a fit case to exercise inherent powers by this Court to quash the criminal proceedings. 7. On the other hand, Mr.S.A. Khan, learned advocate for respondent no.2-wife and Ms.Vrunda Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor have vehemently opposed the prayer of the quashing and contended that, the allegations made in the complaint, prima facie constitute an offence of cruelty and disclose a cognizable offence. It is submitted that jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is extremely limited as the complaint cannot be quashed particularly when there is a sufficient evidence available on record to put the accused persons to trial. It is further submitted that the allegations of cruelty are question of facts to be established by leading evidence before the learned Trial Court as the Court will not be justified upon an inquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR. In nutshell, it is submitted that there is no extraordinary circumstances exists to exercise inherent jurisdiction of this Court. 8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of present case, the issue arises for consideration whether the complaint is liable to be quashed in exercise of extraordinary and inherent jurisdiction ? 9. In nutshell, it is submitted that there is no extraordinary circumstances exists to exercise inherent jurisdiction of this Court. 8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of present case, the issue arises for consideration whether the complaint is liable to be quashed in exercise of extraordinary and inherent jurisdiction ? 9. The scope and power of the High Court to quash the first information report of criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is well settled. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajanlal and others, 1992 Supp. SCC 335, has laid down the guidelines that must be adhered to while exercising inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. the relevant paragraph read 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 defend 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. (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 of 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.” 10. In State of Andhrapradesh Vs. Golconda Lingaswamy and others, 2004(6) SCC 522 , the Hon’ble Apex Court categorically held that in exercise of powers, the Court would be justified to quash any proceedings if it finds that initiation or continuance of it amount to abuse of process of Court or quashing of this proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. 11. Keeping the above proposition of law in mind and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the crucial question of consideration is whether case is made out to exercise inherent powers of this Court ? 12. It is not in dispute that after filing the complaint, respondent no.2 never remained present before the Court. She once was remained present before the Civil Court, Anand to submit settlement pursis Exh.12 and pursuant to the settlement, the Civil Court vide its decree and judgment dated 12.08.2006 dissolved the marriage. 12. It is not in dispute that after filing the complaint, respondent no.2 never remained present before the Court. She once was remained present before the Civil Court, Anand to submit settlement pursis Exh.12 and pursuant to the settlement, the Civil Court vide its decree and judgment dated 12.08.2006 dissolved the marriage. After dissolution of marriage, she married to another person and since then, she is living with her husband at U.K. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that inference can be drawn against respondent no.2-wife that she is not interested in pursuing the prosecution against the applicants, but keeping hanging sword on the applicants, with a view to harass them, she keeps continue the proceedings. It is necessary to refer the observations made by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court [Vrushali Jayesh Kore Vs. State of Maharashtra (2023(1) Crime (Bombay)], Para-9 of the judgment of the Division Bench read thus: “It is pertinent to note that unfounded criminal charges and long drawn criminal prosecution can have serious consequences. A person subjected to such litigation suffers immense mental trauma, humiliation and monetary loss. Reckless imputations can also result in serous repercussion on career progression and future pursuits and most importantly it stigmatizes reputation, brings disrepute and lowers the image of a person amongst friends, family and colleagues. It is to be noted that loss of character or bruised reputation cannot be restored even by judicial reprieve. As Shakespeare has famously said that “Good name in man and woman, dear my lord, is the immediate jewel of their souls: Who steals my purse steals trash; ’tis something, nothing; ’twas mine, ’tis his, and has been slave to thousands: But he that filches from me my good name Robs me of that which not enriches him and makes me poor indeed.” In legal parlance, right to reputation and dignity of an individual is held to be an integrated part of Articles 21 and 19(2) of the Constitution. Therefore, it is imperative for the Court to exercise power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in ft cases, to safeguard and protect the rights of every person subjected to such litigation and prevent misuse of criminal process for personal vendetta.” 13. Therefore, it is imperative for the Court to exercise power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in ft cases, to safeguard and protect the rights of every person subjected to such litigation and prevent misuse of criminal process for personal vendetta.” 13. In view of the above position of law and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and after going through the criminal complaint and subsequent development as discussed hereinabove, more particularly conduct of respondent no.2, I am of the view that it is clear abuse of process of law on the part of the complainant and therefore, it is a fit case to exercise inherent powers to prevent abuse of process of Court and to secure the ends of justice. 14. Resultantly, this application is allowed. The proceedings of Criminal Case No.3304 of 2003 (New C.C.No.415 of 2013) filed by respondent no.2, for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 420, 406, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 5 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are hereby quashed and set aside qua present applicants herein. Accordingly, Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.