ORDER : 1. The present application is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Code’ for short) with the following prayers : “13(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to quash and set aside the FIR being C.R.No.I-7/2011 registered with Mahila Police Station, Rajkot City, charge sheet and all further proceedings in pursuance thereto, qua the present petitioner, in the interest of justice; (B) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 16/06/2015 passed by Addl.Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajkot below Exh.40 in Criminal Case No.2885 of 2011 as well as order dated 14/10/2019 passed by Ld. 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot in Criminal Revision Application No.48 of 2015, in the interest of justice; (C) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to stay the further proceedings of Criminal Case No.2885 of 2011 pending in the Court of Addl.Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajkot, pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition. (D) xxxxx” 2. The facts of the case of the present applicant, as stated in the application, are such that the impugned FIR is filed by the complainant-respondent no.2 against the applicant and other accused alleging that she is married to accused no.1; the accused nos.2 to 4 are father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law of the respondent no.2 and the present applicant is the sister-in-law of the respondent no.2- complainant; it is alleged that as the respondent no.2 belongs to other community, all the accused persons were instigating her husband and also pressurizing her husband for a divorce and all the accused took over her entire stridhan and due to their constant harassment, sometimes her husband used to beat her up; that one day, her husband -accused no.1 went to Surendranagar without informing her and she came to know that her husband wanted a divorce from her and after that her husband never came back to her; and therefore, since then, the respondent no.2 is staying with her parents in Rajkot city. Thus, the impugned complaint is filed, which is prayed to be quashed by way of this application. 3. Heard learned advocate Mr.Shahi for the applicant, learned APP Mr.Jayswal for the respondent no.1 and learned advocate Ms.Bhatt for respondent no.2. 3.1. Thus, the impugned complaint is filed, which is prayed to be quashed by way of this application. 3. Heard learned advocate Mr.Shahi for the applicant, learned APP Mr.Jayswal for the respondent no.1 and learned advocate Ms.Bhatt for respondent no.2. 3.1. Learned advocate Mr.Shahi for the applicant submitted that the applicant is a housewife and sister-in-law of respondent no.2; that the marriage of the present applicant was solemnized on 2.12.2000 and she stayed with her in-laws at Taluka Dhangadhra, Dist.Surendranagar for few years; thereafter as the services of her husband were transferable, they stayed in Ahmedabad city from July, 2007 to July, 2009, thereafter from August 2009 to April, 2014, they stayed in Bhavangar city and since May, 2014, they are residing in Rajkot city; that the applicant is staying separately with her husband, after her marriage took place on 2.12.2000 and much before the marriage of the respondent no.2 i.e. on 1.4.2009; therefore, there is no question of the present applicant staying with the respondent no.2. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned complaint is filed on 25.2.2011 and therefore, there is no question of the applicant getting involved in harassing the applicant. He, therefore, submitted that respondent no.2 has implicated the present applicant just for the sake of roping all the family members of her husband-accused no.1 and therefore, this application be allowed. 3.2 It is submitted that after the investigation, the chargesheet is filed against all the accused including the applicant, the criminal case number being Criminal Case No.2885 of 2011 was also registered before the Addl.Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajkot. During the pendency of the said case, the applicant filed discharge application, which was rejected vide order dated 16.6.2015 by the Addl.Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajkot. Thereafter, being aggrieved by the said order, revision application was filed which was also rejected by the 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot. 3.3 In support of his submission he has placed reliance in the case of Preeti Gupta & Anr. V/s. State of Jharkhand & Anr., reported in (2017) 7 SCC 667 and submitted that this is nothing but abuse of the process of law and therefore the impugned FIR is required to be quashed and set aside. 4. 3.3 In support of his submission he has placed reliance in the case of Preeti Gupta & Anr. V/s. State of Jharkhand & Anr., reported in (2017) 7 SCC 667 and submitted that this is nothing but abuse of the process of law and therefore the impugned FIR is required to be quashed and set aside. 4. Per contra, learned APP Mr.Jayswal for respondent no.1-state and learned advocate Ms.Bhatt for respondent no.2 have submitted that considering the tenor of the FIR, prima facie, the ingredients of Sections 406, 420, 498(A), 323 and 114 of Indian Penal Code are made out. They have further submitted that when the chargesheet is filed, criminal case is numbered and the trial might have proceeded further, this court may not interfere by exercising powers under Section 482 of the Code and this stage and the trial may be proceeded. 5. I have considered the rival submissions of the parties and also the FIR and other documents produced on record. It transpires that there are marital relations between the complainant-respondent no.2 and the accused no.1; that there is no specific incident stated in the FIR against the present applicant; that admittedly, the applicant is married much prior to the marriage of the respondent no.2 and staying separately since then, the entire family members are implicated by the complainant. 6. At this stage, it will be fruitful to mention the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Preeti Gupta & Anr. (supra), wherein it is observed in paragraph 33 thus:- “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. 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. Further, it will also be fruitful to mention the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana V/s Bhajan Lal reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed thus – “In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Ch.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 Art.226 or the inherent powers under sec.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 defined 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 sec.156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of sec.155(2) of the Code. (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 sec.156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of sec.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. (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 sec.156(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 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. (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.” 8. In view of the above and on perusing the contents of the FIR, it appears that the applicant is unnecessarily roped in by the complainant and there are casual references made by her without allegations of active involvement and the allegations are also general and vague and are bereft of specific instances. No specific details are stated in the FIR. There is no active involvement established of the applicant in meting out cruelty from the contents of the F.I.R. 9. In this view of the matter, this is a fit case to exercise the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code. Accordingly, this application is allowed. No specific details are stated in the FIR. There is no active involvement established of the applicant in meting out cruelty from the contents of the F.I.R. 9. In this view of the matter, this is a fit case to exercise the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code. Accordingly, this application is allowed. The impugned FIR C.R.No.I-7/2011 registered with Mahila Police Station, Rajkot City, charge sheet and Criminal Case No.2885 of 2011 pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajkot, arising out of the same FIR are hereby quashed and set aside qua the applicant. Consequently, the impugned orders dated 16/06/2015 passed by Addl.Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajkot below Exh.40 in Criminal Case No.2885 of 2011 as well as order dated 14/10/2019 passed by Ld. 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot in Criminal Revision Application No.48 of 2015 are also quashed and set aside. Direct service is permitted.