ORDER : 1. The applicants – original accused have preferred this application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C, whereby, they are seeking quashment of the Criminal Case No. 3048 of 2022, arises out of impugned FIR No.I-11821003220015 of 2022, registered with Mahila Police Station, Dahod, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, read with Section 114 of Indian Penal Code read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. This Court has heard learned counsel Mr. Darshan Varandani, Mr. Manan Paneri and Mr. Bhargav Pandya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State. 3. Brief facts giving rise to file present application are that, the second respondent Lavina Savlani lodged an FIR against husband and his relatives in relation to the offence of cruelty and demand of dowry. The marriage with Sunny Savlani was solemnized on 13.08.2018. She went to her matrimonial home at Jodhpur, Rajasthan. The husband and wife blessed with two kids aged about 2 ½ years and 8 years respectively. The applicants are parents of the husband, and brother in law and sister-in-law, who are permanent resident of Jodhpur. The route cause for the matrimonial dispute, as disclosed in the FIR is the demand of dowry, as the in-laws were not happy with the dowry given at the time of marriage. The second cause for dispute was birth of female child, as there was insistence and expectation for male child and on this issue, she was harassed mentally and physically and the third issue raised in the FIR is with regard to demand of Rs.10 lakhs to purchase the house. In these background facts, in the month February, 2022, she was driven out from the matrimonial home and since then, she is living along with her two kids at her matrimonial home. 4. The applicants, who are in-laws of the second respondent, have preferred this quashing petition, inter-alia stating that the allegations are vague and casual, which do not attract the ingredients of the offence alleged and therefore, prima-facie, no case is made out. 5. Mr. Varandani, learned counsel appearing for the applicants has submitted that, the FIR is absolutely false and frivolous and on reading of it, the offence of cruelty and demand of dowry are clearly not made out. 5. Mr. Varandani, learned counsel appearing for the applicants has submitted that, the FIR is absolutely false and frivolous and on reading of it, the offence of cruelty and demand of dowry are clearly not made out. He would further urge that, there is no specific date and time being disclosed and no any specific role being assigned to each accused to establish how she was subject to cruelty by the accused applicant. Unless and until, it has not been disclosed then, the ingredients of the offence, alleged are not attracted. Thus, it is his submission that, with a view to harass the in-laws and to resolve the dispute at their terms, the proceedings being initiated with ulterior motive and same is nothing but a misuse of process of law and court. 6. Mr. Manan Paneri, learned counsel opposing the application, has submitted that, pursuant to the FIR, the police has collected the material evidence against the applicants for commission of the alleged offence and therefore, once the chargesheet is filed, the disputed question of facts, as raised herein, cannot be examined at this stage and thus, there is specific allegation that cash amount for purchase of property was being demanded by the applicants and in that view of the matter, where the prima-facie offence is made out against the applicants, power should not be exercised. 7. 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. 8. 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.” 9. 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.” 10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, the issue falls for consideration of this Court is as to whether the FIR and the consequential proceedings are liable to be quashed in exercise of inherent powers of this Court? 11. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, the issue falls for consideration of this Court is as to whether the FIR and the consequential proceedings are liable to be quashed in exercise of inherent powers of this Court? 11. In the facts of the present case, the husband has not filed the quashing petition. The applicants admittedly are in-laws of the respondent no. 2. The sister-in-law is living at Ahmedabad with her husband. The questioned FIR has been lodged on 29.06.2022. Subsequently, on 13.07.2023, the another FIR for the offence of criminal breach of trust and cheating under Section 406, 420 is also filed by the second respondent against the applicants in relation to the ornaments and other items given at the time of marriage. In these background facts, this court is of considered view that, the husband, is in the center of the offence, as he had demanded Rs.4 lakhs and thereafter, according to allegations, he diverted the said amount for his personal use. In such circumstances, due to matrimonial dispute of the husband and wife, the applicants parents, brother and sister-in-law have been impleaded in the alleged offence making casual and general allegations of harassment and demand of dowry. The allegation with regard to birth of female child seems to be contradictory, as the first child was the female child and thereafter, a baby boy was born. The issue of retaining the ornaments illegally by the in-laws have disclosed in the questioned FIR and despite of this, the second FIR for the alleged offence of cheating and criminal breach of trust is being filed which shows the tendency of the wife. In such circumstances, when the matter is pending before the Court qua the husband, the discussion on merits, would either way cause prejudice the rights of the parties. 12. For the reasons recorded, prima-facie, this Court is of the view that, due to matrimonial dispute with the husband, the applicants being in-laws have been impleaded without their being any specific role assigned to them in the alleged offence and thus, the case is made out to quash the impugned FIR and chargesheet. 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. 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. The Criminal Case No. 3048 of 2022, arises out of impugned FIR No. I- 11821003220015 of 2022, registered with Mahila Police Station, Dahod, and other consequential proceedings thereto against present applicants 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.