JUDGMENT : 1. The rule issued by this Court vide order dated 23.11.2022 has been served to respondent no.2, but failed to appear. 2. This petition has been filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing and setting aside the FIR being C.R. No.I-190 of 2018 registered with Puna Police Station, Dist.: Surat for the offfences punishable under section 498A, 323 and 114 of IPC and sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and the proceedings initiated pursuant thereto. 3. Mr. Manan A.Shah, learned advocate for the petitioners submits that the petitioner nos.1, 2 and 3 are the father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law respectively of the respondent no.2 – complainant and petitioner no.4 is aunt of the complainant, who is living separately since many years. Mr. Shah states that the impugned FIR is a classic case of misuse of provision of section 498A of the IPC, where the complaint has been registered by respondent no.2 in connivance with the son of the petitioner nos.1 and 2 only for the family property. 3.1 Mr. Shah states that son of the petitioner nos.1 and 2 had married with respondent no.2 – complainant on 27.04.2009 as per Hindu rites and rituals and after sometime the son of petitioner nos.1 and 2 had started residing separately with the complainant, and thus Mr. Shah states that, prior to the complaint for last many years the son along with complainant had separated from his parents. 3.2 Mr. Shah submitted that on 07.04.2018, the son of petitioner nos.1 and 2, who is husband of respondent no.2, came to the house of the petitioners showing his inclination to stay with them. The parents – petitioner nos.1 and 2 got suspicious of his move and therefore asked his intention of coming back in the house almost after nine years, when he had separated by taking an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- and gold ornaments stating that he would never return back to the house, and to this query the son of petitioner nos.1 and 2 stated that he wanted to stay with them out of love and affinity; and thus out of attachment being the grandparents of three children of the son, parents had granted him permission to stay and they started residing with the parents from 18.04.2018. 3.3 Mr. 3.3 Mr. Shah further submitted that it was a malicious and deliberate act of husband of the complainant, as on 14.06.2018 the husband of the complainant had filed a civil suit being Special Civil Suit No.219 of 2018 for partition and for other reliefs. The notice was issued in the Suit and the returnable date was 21.06.2018, which is also the date of filing of the FIR. Mr. Shah stated that the impugned FIR is nothing but a counter blast and pressure by the complainant upon the petitioners so as to succumb to the illegal demand of the property. Mr. Shah thus states that the parents had no other recourse but to give public notice on 09.05.2018, as during the stay of son along with them, he had initiated certain acts and had transacted with 3rd party in connection with the property, therefore the parents by giving public notice have disowned him. 3.4 Mr. Shah submits that the very act of entering into the house on 18.04.2018 was with an ulterior motive to defame the petitioners, and complainant had even threatened the petitioners by consuming phenyle on 03.05.2018 and was admitted in Unity Hospital; however, when the neighbours supported the case of the petitioners no FIR was registered; thereafter the complainant filed complaint on 21.06.2018. Thus, Mr. Shah stated that the FIR, which has been lodged, very cleverly removes the husband and all the allegations are directed towards the petitioners as the parents-in-law, sister-in-law and further the paternal aunt who is not even staying with them. 4. Learned APP relying on the report of the police states that the complainant was staying in the joint family and on minor domestic issues, she had been harassed by stating that she does not know to cook and was harassed for bringing less dowry and therefore she was physically and mentally harassed. Learned APP submits that since the FIR is lodged for dowry demand and for cruelty, the opportunity is required to be granted to the complainant to adduce the evidence. 5. The respondent no.2 – complainant has not given all the facts for her continuous stay from 2009 to 2018; while the complaint is of 21.06.2018 and the Special Civil Suit No.219 of 2018 for partition and other reliefs was filed on 14.06.2018. The father, prior to filing of the Suit on 09.05.2018 had disowned the son. 5. The respondent no.2 – complainant has not given all the facts for her continuous stay from 2009 to 2018; while the complaint is of 21.06.2018 and the Special Civil Suit No.219 of 2018 for partition and other reliefs was filed on 14.06.2018. The father, prior to filing of the Suit on 09.05.2018 had disowned the son. The suit was filed in the year 2018, where the place of residence of the son was shown as B-204, Sakar Palace, Millennium, Near Row House, Karva Road, Surat. In the suit the husband of the complainant, son of the petitioner nos.1 and 2, had asked the share from ancestral property. The son had even threatened to commit suicide, if he was not given his share in the property and such fact has been reflected in the public notice given by the petitioner no.1 – father. 6. This Court in the case of Chetnaben wife of Sureshbhai Rajyaguru and Others v. State of Gujarat in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.13623 of 2014, has observed as under: “26. Once the FIR is lodged under Sections 498A/406/323 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, whether there are vague, unspecific or exaggerated allegations or there is no evidence of any physical or mental harm or injury inflicted upon woman that is likely to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health, it comes as an easy tool in the hands of Police and agencies like Crime Against Women Cell to hound them with the threat of arrest making them run helter skelter and force them to hide at their friends or relatives houses till they get anticipatory bail as the offence has been made cognizable and non-bailable. Thousands of such complaints and cases are pending and are being lodged day in and day out. There is a growing tendency to come out with inflated and exaggerated allegations roping in each and every relation of the husband and if one of them happens to be of higher status or of a vulnerable standing, he or she becomes an easy prey for better bargaining and blackmailing.” 6.1 In the case of Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, reported in 2010 Criminal Law Journal 4303(1), it has been observed as under: “28. It is a matter of common knowledge that unfortunately matrimonial litigation is rapidly increasing in our country. It is a matter of common knowledge that unfortunately matrimonial litigation is rapidly increasing in our country. All the courts in our country including this court are flooded with matrimonial cases. This clearly demonstrates discontent and unrest in the family life of a large number of people of the society. 29. The courts are receiving a large number of cases emanating from section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code which reads as under :- "498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.--Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, ‘cruelty’ means:- (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand." 30. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under section 498-A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment are also a matter of serious concern. 31. The learned members of the Bar have enormous social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fiber of family life is not ruined or demolished. They must ensure that exaggerated versions of small incidents should not be reflected in the criminal complaints. Majority of the complaints are filed either on their advice or with their concurrence. 31. The learned members of the Bar have enormous social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fiber of family life is not ruined or demolished. They must ensure that exaggerated versions of small incidents should not be reflected in the criminal complaints. Majority of the complaints are filed either on their advice or with their concurrence. The learned members of the Bar who belong to a noble profession must maintain its noble traditions and should treat every complaint under section 498-A as a basic human problem and must make serious endeavour to help the parties in arriving at an amicable resolution of that human problem. They must discharge their duties to the best of their abilities to ensure that social fiber, peace and tranquility of the society remains intact. The members of the Bar should also ensure that one complaint should not lead to multiple cases. 32. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualized by the complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations. 33. 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.” 7. 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.” 7. The very approach of the son i.e. the husband of the respondent no.2 – complainant is reflected by way of public notice, which has been given by the father. The suit for partition has been filed. The petitioner has stated that from almost nine years the son and the complainant by taking cash amount of Rs.10,00,000/- and gold ornaments had left the house and staying separately and thereafter on dubious pretext had entered the house on 18.04.2018. The complainant has not specified as to when and how she was harassed and what dowry demand has been made. She has not made her husband an accused; in fact, the complainant was staying with her husband along with three children separately in the address as shown in the cause title of the suit, which is B-204, Sakar Palace, Millennium, Near Row House, Karva Road, Surat. The FIR filed against the petitioners are with ulterior motive and to exert pressure on the petitioners by moving the criminal machinery. 8. In case of State of Haryana V. Bhajan Lal and others, reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 , the Apex Court formulated as many as seven categories of cases, wherein the extraordinary power under Section 482 could be exercised by the High Court to prevent abuse of process of the court. It was clarified that it was not possible to lay down precise and inflexible guidelines or any rigid formula or to give an exhaustive list of circumstances in which such power could be exercised. The Apex Court in the said case made the following observations:- “8.1. It was clarified that it was not possible to lay down precise and inflexible guidelines or any rigid formula or to give an exhaustive list of circumstances in which such power could be exercised. The Apex Court in the said case made the following observations:- “8.1. In the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the following categories of cases are given 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 guide in myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised: (a) 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; (b) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. 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; (c) 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; (d) 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; (e) 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; (f) 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; (g) 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.” 8.1 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr., reported in 2012 (10) SCC 741 , held as under: “25. However, we deem it appropriate to add by way of caution that we may not be misunderstood so as to infer that even if there are allegation of overt act indicating the complicity of the members of the family named in the FIR in a given case, cognizance would be unjustified but what we wish to emphasize by highlighting is that, if the FIR as it stands does not disclose specific allegation against accused more so against the co-accused specially in a matter arising out of matrimonial bickering, it would be clear abuse of the legal and judicial process to mechanically send the named accused in the FIR to undergo the trial unless of course the FIR discloses specific allegations which would persuade the court to take cognisance of the offence alleged against the relatives of the main accused who are prima facie not found to have indulged in physical and mental torture of the complainant-wife. It is the well settled principle laid down in cases too numerous to mention, that if the FIR did not disclose the commission of an offence, the court would be justified in quashing the proceedings preventing the abuse of the process of law. Simultaneously, the courts are expected to adopt a cautious approach in matters of quashing specially in cases of matrimonial dispute whether the FIR in fact discloses commission of an offence by the relatives of the principal accused or the FIR prima facie discloses a case of over-implication by involving the entire family of the accused at the instance of the complainant, who is out to settle her scores arising out of the teething problem or skirmish of domestic bickering while settling down in her new matrimonial surrounding. 28. We, therefore, deem it just and legally appropriate to quash the proceedings initiated against the appellants Geeta Mehrotra and Ramji Mehrotra as the FIR does not disclose any material which could be held to be constituting any offence against these two appellants. 28. We, therefore, deem it just and legally appropriate to quash the proceedings initiated against the appellants Geeta Mehrotra and Ramji Mehrotra as the FIR does not disclose any material which could be held to be constituting any offence against these two appellants. Merely by making a general allegation that they were also involved in physical and mental torture of the complainant-respondent No.2 without mentioning even a single incident against them as also the fact as to how they could be motivated to demand dowry when they are only related as brother and sister of the complainant’s husband, we are pleased to quash and set aside the criminal proceedings in so far as these appellants are concerned and consequently the order passed by the High Court shall stand overruled. The appeal accordingly is allowed.” 9. Thus, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the law propounded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. (supra), this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case where the inherent powers of the Court under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. could be exercised in favour of the petitioners for securing the ends of justice, as the continuance of proceedings would lead to wastage of precious judicial time. 10. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned FIR being C.R. No.I-190 of 2018 registered with Puna Police Station, Dist.: Surat, Dist.: Surat and the proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof are quashed and set aside qua the present petitioners. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.