ORDER : 1. By invoking inherent power of this Court, the applicants-original accused have preferred this quashing petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C in relation to the FIR being C.R. No. 11208001210008 of 2021 registered with Mahila Police Station, Rajkot City for the offence punishable with Sections 498(A), 323, 504, 506(2) read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 2. This Court has heard learned Counsel Ms. Shivangi Rana appearing for and on behalf of the applicants. 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 parties are Muslim by caste. The marriage of the second respondent with Tanveer Haroon was solemnized on 14.6.2020. The second respondent before the marriage was doing her practice as an Advocate at Rajkot. After sometime of the marriage, matrimonial disputes arose between the parties. In this background facts, FIR being lodged by the second respondent against the husband and his parents, inter alia, alleging that she was subjected to harassment by the accused on the issue of day-to-day house-hold works and dowry. The father-in-law is a Radiologist whereas mother-in-law retired Government Officer. It is alleged in the FIR that the parents harassed the second respondent on the issue of house-hold works and always tortured her saying that she does not have any knowledge of cooking. The second issue raised is that she was pressurized by the in-laws to bring cash amount of Rs.10 Lakhs from her parental home. She being a house-wife, not having any income and, therefore, the qualification of non-earning person of her would be the reason for harassment by the in-laws. So far as husband is concerned, it is alleged that he always supported the acts of his parents and before she could leave the house, the husband and his parents, threatened her that she would be driven out from the matrimonial home. In such circumstances, on the safer side, she left the matrimonial home with all ornaments and other items along with the cash amount and came back at her parental home at Rajkot, where she has lodged the aforesaid FIR. 4. In such circumstances, on the safer side, she left the matrimonial home with all ornaments and other items along with the cash amount and came back at her parental home at Rajkot, where she has lodged the aforesaid FIR. 4. In the aforesaid background facts, the parents have preferred this quashing petition, inter alia, alleging that, the criminal proceedings is manifestly attended with malafides and ulterior motives with a view to harass them and the same is nothing but a sheer abuse and mis-use of process of law and Court. 5. Ms. Shivangi Rana, learned Counsel appearing for the applicants has submitted that, this is third marriage of the second respondent. The applicants are highly qualified persons. The allegations are absolutely false and frivolous and reading of it, the offence of cruelty and demand of dowry are clearly not made out and the allegations qua the applicants are vague and highly improbable and thus, the FIR is nothing but a sheer harassment and gross abuse of the process of law and Court and this is a fit case to exercise inherent powers to prevent the abuse of process. 6. On the other hand, as observed, the second respondent, despite of service of notice, has remained absent. 7. Ms. C.M. Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has submitted that, disputed question of facts cannot be examined at this stage and at this stage, the reliability and genuineness of the allegations may not examined and, therefore, it is submitted that no case is made out for exercising inherent powers. 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. 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. 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. (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. (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. 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 arise for determination as to whether the FIR and consequential proceedings are liable to be quashed in exercise of inherent powers of this Court? 12. Having considered the submissions made by the learned Counsels for the respective parties and the close scrutiny of the allegations made in the FIR, it reveals that in the month of June, 2020, the marriage took place and after short time, the dispute arose on the issue of house-hold works. The allegations with regard to not performing properly the work of cooking, no any specific instance of harassment being disclosed in the FIR and, therefore, the allegations in general terms, as made against the parents of the husband, seems to be non-specific and vague. So far as demand of cash amount is concerned, it is to be noted that the accused are highly qualified persons and they having a sound economic background, the allegations on this aspect, being alleged with ulterior motive. If they would have such kind of tendency then they could not have permitted the second respondent to carry with her Rs. 60,000/- when she decided to leave the house. In such circumstances, this Court is of prima-facie view that the criminal proceedings qua the parents is manifestly attended with malafide and/ or is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive and the same are inherently improbable. Thus, without much discussion on the merits of the case, as the matter qua the husband is pending before the Court, this Court is convinced that continuation of the proceedings of the FIR qua the parents, could amount to abuse and mis-use 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. 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. 11208001210008 of 2021 registered with Mahila Police Station, Rajkot City, and other consequential proceedings thereto qua the parents i.e. mother-in-law and father-in-law 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.