JUDGMENT : Rule returnable forthwith. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of respondent-State. 1. By invoking inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the applicants have preferred this application thereby they seek to quashing of CRMA J No.6081 of 2017 filed by the second respondent claiming various reliefs under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “DV Act”). 2. This Court has heard learned counsel Mr. T.P. Raval with Mr. Bhargav Mehta appearing for and on behalf of the applicants. 3. The second respondent Ms. Nikita Tomar who has filed the questioned application, despite service of notice, she has chosen not to contest the application and remained absent throughout the proceedings. 4. Brief facts giving rise to file the present application are that, the applicants are husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, sister-in-law and uncle-in-law of the second respondent and they are permanent resident of Agra, Uttar Pradesh. The marriage of the respondent no.2 with applicant Ankitsingh Rajawat was solemnized on 08.02.2015 and after marriage, she went to her matrimonial home at Agra, State of U.P. According to case of the second respondent, the sufficient dowry in the form of household items and sum of Rs.60 lacs being given at the time of marriage. In the month of February, 2015, when the husband wife went to Dubai for honeymoon, dispute arose there in relation to non-maintaining of physical relationship and she was threatened by the husband that he will give divorce. On arrival by them at Ahmedabad, the husband and his relatives demanded a house and bike for brother-in-law and to meet with the said demand, the father has purchased the flat in the area of Chandkheda, Ahmedabad in the name of mother-in-law i.e. applicant Sunitasingh Rajawat and gave cash amount of Rs.50,000/- to purchase the bike. Despite sufficient dowry as demanded which had been given at the time of marriage and after marriage, the husband and in-laws harassed her mentally and physically and hurled abusive and tortured her on petty issues of household work. It is further case of the second respondent that, she suffered the mental and physical harassment to save the marriage. Despite sufficient dowry as demanded which had been given at the time of marriage and after marriage, the husband and in-laws harassed her mentally and physically and hurled abusive and tortured her on petty issues of household work. It is further case of the second respondent that, she suffered the mental and physical harassment to save the marriage. After some time, the husband and in-laws again started to harass her and demanded a bungalow and the bike for husband and in order to save the marriage life of daughter, the father of the wife bought a bungalow in Gandhinagar and Bullet bike for husband. The sister-in-law was used to send whatsapp messages to the second respondent and portrayed her that she is not a good wife. In such circumstances, the second respondent has suffered a lot and finally, she constrained to lodge a criminal complaint under Section 498A of the IPC and for getting various reliefs under the provisions of DV Act, filed an application being CRMA J No.6081 of 2017 which is pending on the file of Court No3, Metropolitan Magistrate at Ahmedabad. 5. Dissatisfied with the issue of summons by the court, the applicants has preferred the present application, inter alia, stating that, the proceedings would amount of abuse of process of law and court as in March-2017, the matrimonial dispute was compromised and as per the terms and conditions, Rs.20 lacs being paid by the husband and handed over all the ornaments, household items and other things given at the time of marriage as well as after marriage. Thus, the very material facts of compromise being suppressed before the trial court and on this count, the proceedings require to be quashed. On merits, it has been contended that, the uncontroverted allegations made in the application and evidence in support of the same, do not make out a case against the applicants. 6. Mr. Thus, the very material facts of compromise being suppressed before the trial court and on this count, the proceedings require to be quashed. On merits, it has been contended that, the uncontroverted allegations made in the application and evidence in support of the same, do not make out a case against the applicants. 6. Mr. Tapaswi Raval, learned counsel appearing for and on behalf of the applicants drew attention of this Court to the copy of compromise, bank statement and the xerox copies of cheques with list of dowry items produced at page no.92 to 109 of this application to contend that, the after acknowledging the facts of settlement and that too, after receiving the amount of Rs.20 lacs, the initiation of proceedings invoking the provisions of DV Act is nothing but a sheer abuse of process of law and court. He would further urge that, the second respondent-wife failed to disclose the true facts about the compromise and amount received by her and same is nothing but suppression and/or concealment of material facts and the person who comes before the court with uncleaned hands and suppressed the material facts, is not entitled to any relief as by suppressing the material facts, he or she is abusing the process of the court. The second contention raised is that, the allegations of domestic violence are false, frivolous and the application arraigning the applicants is manifestly attended with malafide intention and with ulterior motive and pressurize the applicants to extract more money from the applicants. 7. In view of the aforesaid contentions and relying on the celebrity judgment of the Apex Court delivered in case of Bhajan Lal, it is contended that, case is made out to invoke the inherent powers of this Court to quash the questioned application filed under the provisions of DV Act. 8. As observed, the second respondent-wife, despite of service of notice, did not remain present, nor filed affidavit-in-reply. 9. The State counsel Mr. Jay Mehta, considering the private dispute of husband and wife and the object of the legislature in enacting the Act of 2005, has contended that, the disputed questions of facts as raised herein, may not be examined and let the trial court may decide it including the issue of suppression of material facts as canvased here. 10. Jay Mehta, considering the private dispute of husband and wife and the object of the legislature in enacting the Act of 2005, has contended that, the disputed questions of facts as raised herein, may not be examined and let the trial court may decide it including the issue of suppression of material facts as canvased here. 10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of present case and on perusal of the material placed on record, the application invoking the provisions of DV Act is filed on 27.11.2017. The copy of affidavit-cum-declaration of compromise dated 17.03.2017 allegedly notarized by the notary, would show that, in order to resolve the dispute, the father of the second respondent and others went to Agra and in the presence of husband and other relatives, parties have decided to get divorce and as a part of compromise, the ornaments and other items as mentioned in the list had been handed over to the father as well as the wife and three cheques each of Rs.5 lacs drawn in favour of Mansingh Tomar were given by the husband. The three cheques as well as one cheque of Rs.5 lacs drawn in favour of wife were presented by the father of the wife for clearing and all four cheques total amounting to Rs.20 lacs, honoured and the amount was credited in the respective bank accounts of the parties. The record indicates that, after receiving the ornaments and other things as well as cash amount of Rs.20 lacs, the criminal machinery put into motion by the second respondent, as a result, one FIR under Section 498A etc. being registered with Ahmedabad Police Station and the application under Section 12 of the DV Act which is subject matter of this application, has been filed, impleading therein in all five persons. On perusal of the application, it reveals that, the facts of aforesaid compromise and the sum of Rs.20 lacs received as a part of compromise have not been disclosed by the wife. Thus, this Court is of considered view that, the second respondent while initiating the proceedings, has suppressed and/or concealed material facts. It is settled position of law that suppression or concealment of material facts is impermissible to a litigant. In such cases, the person who suppressed the material facts and come before the court with uncleaned hands, would disentitles the discretionary relief. It is settled position of law that suppression or concealment of material facts is impermissible to a litigant. In such cases, the person who suppressed the material facts and come before the court with uncleaned hands, would disentitles the discretionary relief. A person who approaches the court for granting relief, equitable or otherwise, is under a solemn obligation to candidly and correctly disclose all the material/important facts which have bearing on the adjudication of the issues raised in the case. He or she owes a duty to the court to bring out all the facts and desist from concealing/suppressing any material facts within his or her knowledge. In the facts of present case, the second respondent is living at her parental home and it is not their case that, she was not aware about the compromise as well as the amount received by her father. The Apex Court in its various pronouncements, applied the rule that, a person who does not disclose all the material facts, has no right to be heard on merits of his or her grievance. 11. In the facts of present case and upon perusal of questioned application filed under Section 12 of the DV Act, the wife has smartly made a reference of the compromise and further disclosed that at that time, only 50% of the ornaments being handed over by the husband. However, fact remains that, she has not clarified about the notarized list of items appended with the affidavit-cum- compromise allegedly signed by the father Mansingh Tomar. Thus, despite of having knowledge about full and final settlement arrived at between the parties and pursuant to the said settlement, four account payee cheques were cleared and payment already been deposited in the accounts of father as well as daughter, by suppressing the said facts in the complaint, the proceeding has been initiated which is nothing but a gross misuse of process of law and court. 12. In view of the conduct and attitude of the respondent parties, it is necessary to refer the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Dalip Singh vs. State of U.P. (2010) 2 SCC 114 whereby condemning the practice of misrepresentation of facts and suppression of material facts, the Supreme Court observed and held as under: “For many centuries, Indian society cherished two basic values of life i.e., `Satya' (truth) and `Ahimsa' (non- violence). Mahavir, Gautam Buddha and Mahatma Gandhi guided the people to ingrain these values in their daily life. Truth constituted an integral part of justice delivery system which was in vogue in pre-independence era and the people used to feel proud to tell truth in the courts irrespective of the consequences. However, post-independence period has seen drastic changes in our value system. The materialism has over- shadowed the old ethos and the quest for personal gain has become so intense that those involved in litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression of facts in the court proceedings. In last 40 years, a new creed of litigants has cropped up.” 13. In light of the said observation and half hearted statements of the compromise made by the wife in the questioned application, this Court is of considered opinion that, it would be unfair to betray the confidence of the court by making statement which are misleading and therefore, when the applicants comes to the court to obtain the relief, she should make a full and fair disclosure of all material facts in the pleadings. Thus, the application under the provisions of DV Act deserves to be dismissed without considering the merits of the claim. 14. For the reasons recorded, the present application is allowed and accordingly, without examining merits and demerits of allegations of domestic violence, the application being CRMA J No.6081 of 2017 pending on the file of Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Ahmedaband and the consequential proceedings thereto qua the applicants are quashed. Accordingly, Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.