ORDER : 1. Present application has been filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., praying therein that, the FIR being CR. No. 11216008220027 of 2022 registered with Sector 7 Gandhinagar Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. This Court has heard Mr. Dhaval Trivedi, learned advocate for Mr. Pratik Barot and State Counsel Mr. Jay Mehta. When the matter is called out, learned advocate for the respondent no. 2 did not remain present to assist the Court. 3. Brief facts giving rise to file present application are that, the applicants are relatives and in-laws of the husband Amit Kundaliya, whose marriage with the second respondent was solemnized on 29.04.2016. The second respondent wife has lodged the criminal proceedings against the applicants, inter-alia, alleging against them that she was subjected to cruelty by the applicants. In the FIR, it is alleged that, after the marriage, she lived one year at her parental home and used to come at her matrimonial home at Ahmedabad. The husband was serving at Mumbai, as a result, after her pregnancy, she again went to her parental home for delivery. After the delivery of a daughter, when she came at her matrimonial home, the dispute arose on petty issue of household works and she was harassed by mother-in-law and father- in-law and hurled abusive by them. On delivering the female child, the in-laws do not like it, as they want a son and on this issue, she was mentally harassed by the in-laws. On the issue of dowry, it is alleged that, the applicants asked her to bring the cash amount from her father, as after his retirement, he got retiral benefits of substantial amount. The dispute was compromised and thereafter she went to Mumbai to reside with her husband and stayed there for about 3 months and again came to matrimonial home at Ahmedabad, where she was tortured mentally and physically. It is alleged that on 17.11.2021, in the presence of her brother, the scuffle took place between the husband and her brother. So far as sister-in-law and her husbands are concerned, it is alleged that, as and when they took visit at the matrimonial home, they always provoked the husband and other family members on the issue of cruelty and demand of dowry. 4. So far as sister-in-law and her husbands are concerned, it is alleged that, as and when they took visit at the matrimonial home, they always provoked the husband and other family members on the issue of cruelty and demand of dowry. 4. Mr. Dhaval Trivedi, learned advocate for the applicants has submitted that, the entire family members have been falsely roped into the offence without their being any justifiable reason on the issue of cruelty and demand of dowry. The allegations are completely vague and general and without any specific instances with the precision of the events, the applicants who have nothing to do with the matrimonial dispute of husband and wife, have been falsely impleaded with oblique and ulterior motive and therefore, considering the intention of the wife, the initiation of the proceedings is nothing but a sheer harassment to the applicants and it would amount to abuse of process of law and court. 5. Mr. Dhaval Trivedi, in the aforesaid facts and circumstances has submitted that, the allegations accepted as it is to be true, do not disclose the ingredients of the alleged offence and therefore, considering the parameters of Supreme Court decisions in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal reported in (1992) Supp 1 SCC 335 and others, the FIR and consequential proceedings thereto may be quashed. 6. The scope and power of the High Court to quash the first information report is well settled. The power under Section 482 of the Code has to be exercised sparingly and cautiously to prevent the abuse of process of Court and to secure the ends of justice. The High Court should refrain from giving a prima-facie decision, unless there are compelling circumstances to do so. Taking the allegations, as they are, without adding or subtracting anything, if no offence is made out, only then, the High Court would be justified in quashing the proceedings in the exercise of its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 7. The Apex Court in case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal reported in (1992) Supp 1 SCC 335 has laid down the guidelines that must be adhered to while exercising inherent powers under Sections 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings. The relevant paragraph reads thus: “102. The Apex Court in case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal reported in (1992) Supp 1 SCC 335 has laid down the guidelines that must be adhered to while exercising inherent powers under Sections 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings. The relevant paragraph reads 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 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 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. (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. (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 Act concerned (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 Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides 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. Since the FIR in question emanates from matrimonial disputes. Recently, the Apex Court in case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599 held and observed that, in recent times, matrimonial litigation in the country has increased significantly which led in an increased tendency to employ provision such as 498A Indian Penal Code as instruments to settled personal scores against the husband and his relatives. In para-17 of the judgment, it is observed that: “17. ….. this court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of section 498A IPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analyzing the long term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said judgments that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them.”. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, the issue falls for my consideration is whether the case is made out for quashing the criminal proceedings by invoking the inherent powers of this Court. 10. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, the issue falls for my consideration is whether the case is made out for quashing the criminal proceedings by invoking the inherent powers of this Court. 10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and on perusal of the allegations made in the FIR, it appears that after the marriage she had gone to parental home and stayed there for about 1 year and thereafter, in the pregnancy period and on delivery of the child, she again considerably time at her parental home and due to service of the husband at Mumbai, she had been in Mumbai for about 3 to 4 months. In such circumstances, the allegations made against the parents and sister-in-laws and brother-in- law, who are applicants herein seem to be general in nature and the day to day affairs of the household works being termed as cruelty by the wife. Thus, therefore, prima-facie, this Court is of the considered view that, the allegations made against the applicants do not attract the ingredients of offence cruelty and so far as demand of cash amount is concerned, in absence of any date and time of demand of cash amount and considering the financial condition of the applicants, the allegations on this aspect being made only with a view to lodge the FIR against the applicants. Thus, the allegations accepted to be true qua the applicants, do not satisfy the ingredients of the alleged offence. 11. For the aforementioned reasons, the case is fully covered by the categories (i) and (vii) as enumerated by the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal and therefore, this Court is convinced that the continuation of the criminal proceedings would be an abuse of process of the Court and law. 12. Resultantly, the application succeeds. Rule is made absolute to aforesaid extend. FIR being CR. No. 11216008220027 of 2022 registered with Sector 7 Gandhinagar Police Station, and other consequential proceedings thereto against present applicants are hereby quashed and set aside. 13. The observations made hereinabove are prima-facie in nature and confined to the adjudication of the present application. The investigation agency as well as the trial Court shall not get influence by the said observation during the investigation as well as at the course of trial. Direct service permitted.