JUDGMENT : 1. Present application is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘the Cr.P.C.’ hereinafter) praying to quash and set aside the FIR being I­C.R.No.55 of 2014 registered with Mahila Police Station, Ahmedabad. 2. This matter was heard on 17.11.2014 and the notice was issued, permitting the investigation to carry out and directions for no coercive steps were ordered. Thereafter, vide order dated 02.09.2015 this Court has observed that “the learned advocate Mr.Devesh Bhatt appearing for the respondent No.2 is not remaining present since long and therefore, the Rule issued and investigation permitted to proceed further.” Vide order dated 04.12.2015 the draft amendment was allowed and the Criminal Case No.337 of 2015 was stayed till the final disposal of this application. 3. On 14.07.2023 the learned APP was directed to record the statement informing to the complainant with regard to the pendency of the petition as the learned advocate for the respondent No.2 remained absent constantly. Though the statement was recorded, but the respondent No.2­complainant did not choose to appear therefore, again the notice was issued on 29.09.2023 which was served to the respondents­complainant. On 18.09.2023 the statement of the respondent­complainant was recorded that the complainant does not want to engage an advocate. Therefore, present application was heard on merits in absence of complainant. 4. This application is filed by the applicants, who are the husband, mother­in­law, father­ in­law, brother­in­law and sister­in­law praying to quash and set aside the FIR, which is filed for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 406 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. Facts narrated in the FIR are stated herein below: 5.1. It is alleged in the FIR that marriage of the respondent No.2 was solemnized with the applicant No.1 on 29.11.2009 according to the rites and rituals of the community. The respondent­complainant was staying with the husband and her in­laws at her matrimonial house. The respondent No.2 wanted to get her marriage registered, but as per the allegations made in the FIR, applicant Nos.1 to 3 did not take any step in that direction. It was alleged further that the respondent Nos.1 to 3 were taunting to the complainant with regard to her educational qualification. 5.2. It is averred in the complaint that though the respondent No.2 is well educated, still, the applicants were commenting about her educational qualification and were torturing physically as well as mentally. It was alleged further that the respondent Nos.1 to 3 were taunting to the complainant with regard to her educational qualification. 5.2. It is averred in the complaint that though the respondent No.2 is well educated, still, the applicants were commenting about her educational qualification and were torturing physically as well as mentally. It is further alleged in the complaint that to get her further educated and to get the Government job, complainant was sent back to her parental house to complete the studies of B.Ed. and M.A. It is alleged in the complaint that the applicant No.1­ husband is visiting the house of the complainant’s parents and maintaining the physical relations with the complainant­ wife. 5.3. The complainant had insisted to register the marriage and informed that only thereafter the complainant would fulfill the conjugal rights of the marriage with the applicant No.1. It is alleged that the applicant No.1 did not register the marriage and force to have physical relation to the respondent­complainant. On disclosing this fact to the parents and brother of the respondent No.2, they asked the applicant No.1 to get the marriage registered and informed that thereafter only they would send the respondent No.2 on the matrimonial house. Because of this incident, the applicant No.1 has stopped visiting the house of the complainant’s parents and disconnect the contact with the respondent No.2. 5.4. It is further alleged that on 08.02.2014 on Non­Judicial Stamp Paper of Rs.100 the deed of divorce was prepared and the applicant No.1 signed in the presence of ten witnesses and it was sent to the complainant and according to the complainant, she refused to sign and file a complaint before the Mahila Police Station at Ahmedabad being I­C.R.No.54 of 2014 which is impugned herein. 6. Heard the learned advocate Mr.Kunal Shah for the applicant, learned APP Ms.Monali Bhatt for respondent No.1­State, as it recorded earlier no one has appeared on behalf of the respondent No.2­original complainant. 7. Learned advocate Mr.Kunal Shah for the applicant submits that as per their community rituals, the divorce has already been taken place and amount of alimony was paid in presence of community people of the village and thereafter the divorce deed was executed in which the respondent No.2 had also signed. 7. Learned advocate Mr.Kunal Shah for the applicant submits that as per their community rituals, the divorce has already been taken place and amount of alimony was paid in presence of community people of the village and thereafter the divorce deed was executed in which the respondent No.2 had also signed. Learned advocate Mr.Shah submits that in the said deed, the respondent No.2 had admitted that she had received all her ornaments and articles from the applicants as well as the amount of lumpsum alimony was also received. However, with a view to extort more money from the applicants, this false FIR was filed. 7.1. Learned advocate Mr.Shah submits that though in the FIR it is alleged that she did not signed in the divorce papers, however from the divorce deed, it reveals that the brother of the complainant purchased the stamp paper and the complainant herself had executed the deed of divorce in the presence of panch. Learned advocate further relies on the maintenance application filed by the respondent No.2 and submits that in the said application, she admitted that the divorce was taken place on 08.02.2014, but it is mentioned in the application that it was without her consent. Learned advocate Mr.Shah further submits that in fact in the said application also, she admits the execution of the divorce deed. 7.2. Learned advocate Mr.Shah relies on the HMP Suit No.976 of 2014 filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for Restitution of Conjugal Rights wherein also the reference of the divorce deed is mentioned by the complainant. Learned advocate Mr.Shah relies on the charges alleged in the FIR and submits that even if, the version of the FIR is accepted then also the ingredients of the alleged sections are not satisfied with. 7.3. Learned advocate Mr.Shah submits that the FIR was filed almost after three and half years and submitted that according to Section 467 of the Cr.P.C., period of limitation would apply and therefore after the period which is mentioned in Section 468, no FIR can be entertained and therefore also the present FIR deserves to be quashed and set aside. 7.4. By making the aforesaid submissions, learned advocate Mr.Shah prays to allow this application and to quash the impugned FIR as well as the chargesheet being Criminal Case No.337 of 2015 pending in the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court No.11, Ahmedabad. 7.4. By making the aforesaid submissions, learned advocate Mr.Shah prays to allow this application and to quash the impugned FIR as well as the chargesheet being Criminal Case No.337 of 2015 pending in the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court No.11, Ahmedabad. 8. On the other hand learned APP Ms.Monali Bhatt for the State submits that as per the chargehseet, the statement of the witnesses were recorded wherein they have supported the version of the complainant. Learned APP Ms.Bhatt further submits that even as per the statement which was recorded on 24.02.2023 she is admitting with regard to the remarriage with the other person, but she requested that she had suffered a lot from the marriage, which was solemnized with the applicant No.1 and therefore, she prays that appropriate order be passed dismissing the application in the interest of justice. 9. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the documents placed along with the chargesheet. 10. The applicants are the accused named in the FIR which was filed for the offence punishable under Section 498A, 406 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. In the FIR, it is alleged that the complainant was sent to the house of her parents to complete her further studies and when she has insisted to register the marriage, the applicant No.1 had stopped to coming at the house of the complainant’s parents. It further transpires from the FIR that she had completed her studies upto B.Ed and M.A. was going on. During the period when she was stayed at the house of her parents, the husband frequently visited and forced to have physical relations with the complainant. It is further alleged that complainant informed that unless and until the marriage would be registered, she would not permit to have the physical relations, however the husband has forcibly done the physical relations. On being informed to the parents and the brothers, they also instructed the husband to register the marriage and thereafter the husband had stopped visiting the house of the complainant. 11. It is alleged in the FIR that on 08.02.2014 the divorce deed which was executed on 100 Rs. On being informed to the parents and the brothers, they also instructed the husband to register the marriage and thereafter the husband had stopped visiting the house of the complainant. 11. It is alleged in the FIR that on 08.02.2014 the divorce deed which was executed on 100 Rs. Non­Judicial Stamp Paper, signature was made by the applicant No.1 in the presence of ten witnesses and the respondent No.2 did not sign the divorce deed and one more divorce deed was produced which is at page No.32 dated 11.02.2014, which was signed by the complainant in presence of five panch witnesses. 12. The statement, which was recorded by the police officer also reveals that the respondent No.2 had remarried with the other person and presently she is staying with her husband happily. 13. The application which was filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 being HMP Suit No.476 of 2014 wherein also she has contended that on 08.02.2014 the signature of the complainant was taken without her consent. The similar contention was raised in the application which was filed under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. that without her consent on the blank paper the signature was taken on 08.02.2014.Perusing the versions which are mentioned in the FIR and in the aforesaid application, it transpires that the complainant has stated contradict version before the different authorities. The complainant being educated lady having the qualification of M.A. would not have surrendered the threats or the force which was applied as per her allegation. Statement which was recorded of the relatives of the respondent No.2 i.e. father­in­law, mother­in law, brother­in law and sister­in law appears to be a stereo typed version. Though names of the independent persons are mentioned in the divorce deed, the Investigating Officer has not bothered to record the statement for the reasons best known to him. 14. Statement which was recorded of the relatives of the respondent No.2 i.e. father­in­law, mother­in law, brother­in law and sister­in law appears to be a stereo typed version. Though names of the independent persons are mentioned in the divorce deed, the Investigating Officer has not bothered to record the statement for the reasons best known to him. 14. The allegations made in the FIR with regard to Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 405 defining criminal breach of trust is required to be considered, which is reproduced herein below: “405.Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or wilfully suffers any other person so to do, commits "criminal breach of trust". 1[2[Explanation 1].A person, being an employer 3[of an establishment whether exempted under section 17 of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952) or not] who deducts the employees contribution from the wages payable to the employee for credit to a Provident Fund or Family Pension Fund established by any law for the time being in force, shall be deemed to have been entrusted with the amount of the contribution so deducted by him and if he makes default in the payment of such contribution to the said Fund in violation of the said law, shall be deemed to have dishonestly used the amount of the said contribution in violation of a direction of law as aforesaid.] [Explanation 2.A person, being an employer, who deducts the employees contribution from the wages payable to the employee for credit to the Employees State Insurance Fund held and administered by the Employees State Insurance Corporation established under the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), shall be deemed to have been entrusted with the amount of the contribution so deducted by him and if he makes default in the payment of such contribution to the said Fund in violation of the said Act, shall be deemed to have dishonestly used the amount of the said contribution in violation of a direction of law as aforesaid.]” 15. In the instant case, the contents of the FIR do not establish the criminal breach of trust. As essential ingredients for criminal breach of trust i.e. “(i) the accused must be entrusted with the property or with dominion over it, (ii)the accused must dishonestly use or dispose of that property or willfully suffer any other person to do so in violation”, is missing. 16. Therefore, the basic ingredients i.e. one entrustment and second is whether the accused act with dishonest intention is missing from the present FIR. Therefore, this Court is of the view that no any ingredients satisfied from impugned FIR against the applicants even if the allegations made are taken to its face value. 17. The another charge for which the FIR was filed is with regard to Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, the said provision is reproduced herein below: “498A. 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 terms which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.-For the purposes of this section, “cruelty means”- (a) anywilful 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.” 18. Essential ingredients in these sections are (i) the victim was a married lady, (ii) she has been subjected to cruelty by her husband or the relatives of her matrimonial house, such cruelty was consisted if either (i)harassment of the women with a view to coerce, meeting a demand for dowry, (ii) a willful conduct by the husband or relatives of husband of such a nature as is likely to lead the lady to commit suicide or to cause severe injury to life, limb or health and (iii)such injury aforesaid may be of physical or mental. 19. 19. In the instant case, allegation is that she was sent to the parental house for further studies and the husband visited time and again the house and made physical relationships with her. On being insisted to register the marriage, husband stopped to visit her house. This allegation in the opinion of this Court would not amount to a cruelty as defined under the provisions. 20. In view of above provisions of law and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and on going through the complaint and chargesheet papers as discussed above, more particularly, the development that respondent No.2 had remarried and she is staying happily with her husband, this Court is of the view that the continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law and therefore, this is a fit case to exercise the inherent power to prevent the abuse of process of Court and to secure the ends of justice. 21. Resultantly, this application is allowed. The proceedings of the impugned FIR being I­C.R.No.55 of 2014 registered with Mahila Police Station, Ahmedabad as well as the chargesheet being Criminal Case No.337 of 2015 pending in the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court No.11, Ahmedabad are hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute accordingly.