ORDER : 1. By invoking inherent power of this Court, the applicant-original accused Manubhai Nagrecha, has preferred this quashing petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C in relation to the FIR being C.R. No. 11210004201615 of 2020 registered with Amroli Police Station, Surat for the offence punishable under Sections 498(A), 323 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. This Court has heard learned Counsel Mr. Punam Gadhvi appearing for and on behalf of the applicant. Despite of notice of service of rule, the second respondent wife, who has lodged the FIR, has chosen not to contest the present application and remained absent throughout the proceedings. 3. The brief facts giving rise to file the present application are that the marriage of the second respondent Ms. Mittal Dipesh Nagrecha was solemnized on 4.12.2016 with accused No.5 Dipesh Manubhai. She has lodged the aforesaid FIR impleading therein in all 5 persons, inter alia, alleging that after her marriage, when she went to matrimonial home, she was subjected to harassment by the husband and his relatives. The applicant herein is father-in-law. In the FIR, it is alleged that on the second day of the marriage, the mother-in-law and sister-in-law started harassing her on the issue of insufficient dowry and treated her as a maid and the said harassment was continued for about 3 months and thereafter, she went to her parental home and stayed there about 6 months as the husband and in- laws were not interested to take her back. She filed a complaint with the Surat Police Station. Due to compromise, she again went to matrimonial home and after birth of male-child, she was again tortured and harassed by the in-laws and on the petty issues, the dispute arose, as a result, the husband used to beat her. In order to resolve the dispute, the husband-wife have decided to live separately and on the birthday of her son, the in-laws came to her house where again the dispute arose, as a result, she constrained to live the house and since last 4 months, she is living at her parental house. So far as applicant father-in-law is concerned, it is alleged that he aided and abetted the husband in commission of the alleged offence of cruelty. 4. So far as applicant father-in-law is concerned, it is alleged that he aided and abetted the husband in commission of the alleged offence of cruelty. 4. The applicant has preferred this quashing petition, inter alia, stating that he has been falsely impleaded as an accused without there being any cause and as such by making general and vague allegations, the FIR has been filed with malafide and ulterior motive, which is nothing but sheer abuse of process of law and Court. 5. Mr. Punam Gadhvi, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant has submitted that the applicant father-in-law has nothing to do with the matrimonial dispute of husband and wife and to built a pressure for amicable settlement, criminal machinery is being put into motion, with malafide intention and, therefore, the allegations and averments made in the FIR, accepted as it is, do not disclose the essential ingredients of the offence alleged and, therefore, the impugned FIR is nothing but a sheer abuse of the process and the same deserves to be quashed. 6. As observed, the second respondent wife, despite of service remained absent throughout the proceedings. 7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Jay Mehta by opposing the application, has contended that, the allegations qua the applicant, disclose the commission of the offence and, therefore, the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint, cannot be gone into at this stage. 8. 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. 9. 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.” 10. 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.” 11. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, the issue which requires determination is whether the FIR and consequential proceedings thereto are liable to be quashed in exercise of extra- ordinary and inherent powers of this Court? 12. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, the issue which requires determination is whether the FIR and consequential proceedings thereto are liable to be quashed in exercise of extra- ordinary and inherent powers of this Court? 12. In the facts of the present case, the marriage of the second respondent with the son of the applicant in the year 2016. According to the case of the wife, on second day of the marriage, she was harassed mentally and physically by the mother-in-law and sister-in-law. After 3 months due to matrimonial dispute with the husband, she went to her parental home and, thereafter, compromise arrived at between the parties and after staying at the matrimonial for sometime, the husband-wife got separated from the family and were living in their personal accommodation made by them. In such circumstances, the centre in the dispute is the husband and against whom serious allegations of physical harm having been alleged. So far as applicant father-in-law is concerned, nothing specifically being alleged that how and under what manner he used to harass the second respondent. Thus, therefore, the allegations qua the father-in-law are vague and general and by making omnibus allegations, he has been impleaded as accused. Thus, this Court is convinced that on perusal of the allegations against the applicant, the necessary ingredients of the offence alleged are not made out and continuation of the criminal proceeding qua him is nothing but a sheer abuse of the process of law and Court. 13. 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. 14. Resultantly, the application succeeds. Rule is made absolute to aforesaid extend. FIR being C.R. No. 11210004201615 of 2020 registered with Amroli Police Station, Surat and other consequential proceedings thereto against present applicant are hereby quashed and set aside. 15. 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.