ORDER : J. C. DOSHI, J. 1. By way of this petition, under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the Petitioner seeks following relief: “(a)YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to quash and set aside the FIR being C.R.No. I-4 of 2016 registered with Adajan Police Station, Surat at Annexure-A of this application. (b) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to direct the Investigating Agency that not to arrest the petitioners and further be pleased to stay subsequently proceeding arising out FIR being C.R.No. I-4/2016 registered at Adajan Police Station, Surat. (c) Pending admission, final hearing and disposal of the application be pleased to stay the further proceedings in connection with the FIR being registered vide C.R.No. I-4/2016 registered at Adajan Police Station, Surat.” 2. The short facts of the case are as under: 2.1 Brief facts leading to the filing of this application are that the opponent no.2 and accused no. 1 solemnized into marital relationship on 13.12.2009. It is further case that on 15.1.2010, the accused no. 1 went to Australia as he resides and work as Store Keeper at one petrol pump. The case of complainant is that no sooner the complainant came at her matrimonial home after marriage; the applicant no.2 took away the custody of ornaments as well as other valuable belonging of complainant into her custody. It is further alleged that accused no.1 gave inhuman treatment to the complainant and further do not provide money for her personal expenditure. It is further alleged that all the accused used to abuse complainant for not bringing expensive gifts/dowry and other things as agreed upon between the accused and parents of the complainant. It is further alleged that no sooner accused no.1 left the country, the applicant no.2 used to abuse the complainant for not bringing dowry demanded at the time of marriage. It is further alleged that time and again applicant no.2 cause mental torture to the complainant for petty household issues. It is further alleged that in June, 2010, the complainant went to Australia and further alleged that accused no. 1 abused and cause physical torture time and again. It is further alleged that complainant was also denied permission to visit India to meet her parent. It is further alleged that twice the accused no. 1 committed intercourse with the complainant without her consent. 1 abused and cause physical torture time and again. It is further alleged that complainant was also denied permission to visit India to meet her parent. It is further alleged that twice the accused no. 1 committed intercourse with the complainant without her consent. It is further stated that the complainant has also filed a complaint in Australia for charges of commission of rape. It is further alleged that all the accused with common intention time and again abused and cause mental torture and further alleged to give pressure to fulfill the dowry demand. Thus the aforesaid complaint is lodged against all the accused. 3. The Petitioners are the in laws of the first informant-wife. FIR is in regards to the offence under Section 498(a), 406, 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of IPC. Initially when the process was served to the complainant, it came on record that she lives in Australia albeit she was represented by Learned Advocate Ms. Kruti M. Shah. Later on Learned Advocate Ms. Kruti M. Shah withdrew her appearance and therefore fresh notice was issued to the Respondent No.2 which was accepted by her brother. But now there is no representation from the part of the complainant. 4. Learned Advocate Mr. Ruturaj Nanavati appears for the petitioner and in his short submission, he submits that bare reading of the FIR does not disclose cruelty, harassment, cheating or any of the element which prima facie attracts the offence alleged in the FIR. He further submits that the petitioners are in laws of the complainant. Against them, general and Vague allegations are leveled, apart from that there are no other incident specifically stated in FIR to attract the cruelty and harassment being a chief charge in the FIR. While referring to the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of State of Haryana vs Bhajanlal reported in AIR 2003 SC 1386 , Learned Advocate Mr. Ruturaj Nanavati submits that the petitioner should not be relegated to face the trial and submitted to allow the petition. 5. Upon above submission learned Advocate Mr. Ruturaj Nanavati submits to quash the FIR against the petitioners. 6. Per contra, Learned APP Mr. Tirthraj Pandya however referred to the FIR and contended that prima facie FIR attracts the offence under Section 498(a) of INDIAN PENAL CODE . 5. Upon above submission learned Advocate Mr. Ruturaj Nanavati submits to quash the FIR against the petitioners. 6. Per contra, Learned APP Mr. Tirthraj Pandya however referred to the FIR and contended that prima facie FIR attracts the offence under Section 498(a) of INDIAN PENAL CODE . He further submitted that there is sufficient allegations in the FIR which is sufficient to put the petitioner to the trial and therefore submitted not to allow the petition. 7. Upon above submissions learned APP Mr. Tirthraj Pandya submits to dismiss the petition. 8. As stated here in above, though respondent No.2 is served, she did not choose to contest the petition. 9. Heard learned advocates for both the sides and minutely examined the content of the FIR. 10. The gist of the FIR can be reproduced as under: “I state my complaint in person that I reside with my parents at the aforementioned address and I am occupied with household work. My marriage was solemnized as per the rituals of society on 13/12/2009 with Dhaval, son of Vinodbhai Natvarlal Dave, resident of 20, Avkaash society, behind Amarnath Mahadev temple, Bapunagar, Ahmedabad. At the time of marriage, as Stridhan, heavy gold set, earrings, 2 units bangles, diamond pendant set were given by my parents; set of pendant earrings, gold chain mother gifted 21, heavy saree 21, heavy dresses, red coloured luggage bag, imitation jewellery, kitchen set, gold ring were given from my elder sister ‘illegible’. My husband was given gold chain weighing five tola and gold ring at the time of engagement from my parents. My husband had given me gold set and bangles. On the day of marriage at the pandal, my mother in law Jayshreeben Dave made me take out all the aforementioned jewellery and placed the same in her bag. Thereafter, I went to reside at Ahmedabad with my husband and his parents. I used to live with them in joint family. Our reception was held at Ahmedabad on the next day. At that time, my mother in law had given me the jewellery to wear which was gifted to me. After the occasion, the aforesaid jewellery was taken back. The jewellery of Kariyavar and Stridhan was kept in possession of my husband and his parents and the aforesaid jewellery was not returned to me. At that time, my mother in law had given me the jewellery to wear which was gifted to me. After the occasion, the aforesaid jewellery was taken back. The jewellery of Kariyavar and Stridhan was kept in possession of my husband and his parents and the aforesaid jewellery was not returned to me. My husband Dhaval used to treat me as a maid in the house and he barely spoke to me and he did not take me outside and he did not give me any money. My mother in law told me that your father has not given kitchen set, sofa set and double bed. I informed my husband Dhaval in this regard. I was shocked as he told me that your father should have given the same. Therefore, I told my husband that you should have talked to my parents regarding this set before the marriage. Thereafter, my husband and his parents skipped that conversation. My mother in law used to tell me that I do not know household work and she used to taunt me regarding the household work and my father in law also used to support my mother in law in the conversation. However, I did not say anything by thinking that behavior of in my laws will improve and I used to respect them. On 15/01/2010, my husband left for Australia and I was at my matrimonial house at that time. At that time, my mother in law and father in law used to mentally harass me a lot and demanded dowry, directly or indirectly and thus harassed me mentally. My mother in law and father in law used to tell me that your parents have not given anything as per our expectation and your parents have not provided new furniture for the house. Such demands of dowry shocked me. I did not inform my parents about dowry at that time because it would have shocked them. Therefore, I used to bear all kind of harassment. My mother in law and father in law did not let me go to my paternal house. Since I required passport, I had gone to my paternal house. At that time, I had informed my mother regarding the aforesaid incident. However, my mother told me that you have married recently so you should respect your mother in law and father in law. Since I required passport, I had gone to my paternal house. At that time, I had informed my mother regarding the aforesaid incident. However, my mother told me that you have married recently so you should respect your mother in law and father in law. Therefore, I did not speak against my in laws. They used to taunt me time and again and they used to insult me by hurling abusive words about my parents.” 11. What could be noticed is that the FIR is filed after 7 years of alleged incident. Though it is stated that she faced continuous harassment from 13.12.2009, nothing is discernible from the FIR, which shows that there is continuation of the harassment which permits the complainant to file the FIR after the gape of 7 years of alleged incident. Be that as it may, in sofar as the present petitioners, who are in laws of complainant are concerned, only general and vague allegations are leveled in FIR. 12. Coordinate Bench while issuing a notice on 02.02.2016 observed as under: “It appears that the husband is sitting fine in Australia. It also appears that he obtained an ex parte decree of divorce from the Court in Australia. As such the foreign decree obtained is not binding to the wife. I am of the view that the husband should immediately come down to India from Australia and settle the matter with the wife. The wife should also know her status in life. Prima facie, it appears that the case is one of an irretrievable breakdown of marriage, and therefore, it would be in the interest of both the husband and wife to dissolve the marriage subject to certain terms and conditions.” 13. That even while issuing the notice the Coordinate Bench noted that the husband is main kingpin behind the present circumstances and not the present petitioners. Apart from making allegations of extending mental torture and demanding dowry, no specific incident is stated in the FIR to attract the definition of cruelty and harassment stated in Section 498(A) of the INDIAN PENAL CODE . Even demand of dowry is found to be a remote cause as only general allegations of demanding dowry is made and no specific demand is stated. No demand of specific article or any other thing is alleged against petitioners. 14. Even demand of dowry is found to be a remote cause as only general allegations of demanding dowry is made and no specific demand is stated. No demand of specific article or any other thing is alleged against petitioners. 14. Recently, Hon’ble Apex Court warn against misuse of law, while quashing offences under Section 498(A) of Code of Criminal Procedure against Husband and in laws, in case of Ghanshyam Soni versus State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Others of 2025 Live Law (SC) 676, observed and held as under: “10. A perusal of the FIR shows that the allegations made by the complainant are that in the year 1999, the Appellant inflicted mental and physical cruelty upon her for bringing insufficient dowry. The Complainant refers to few instances of such atrocities, however the allegations are generic, and rather ambiguous. The allegations against the family members, who have been unfortunately roped in, is that they used to instigate the Appellant husband to harass the Complainant wife, and taunted the Complainant for not bringing enough dowry; however, there is no specific incident of harassment or any evidence to that effect. Similarly, the allegations against the five out of six sisters that they used to insult the Complainant and demanded dowry articles from her, and upon failure beat her up, but there is not even a cursory mention of the incident. An allegation has also been made against a tailor named Bhagwat that he being a friend of the Appellant instigated him against the Complainant, and was allegedly instrumental in blowing his greed. Such allegations are merely accusatory and contentious in nature, and do not elaborate a concrete picture of what may have transpired. For this reason alone, and that the evidence on record is clearly inconsistent with the accusations, the version of the Complainant seems implausible and unreliable. The following observation in K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana Represented by Its Secretary, Department of Home & Ors., fits perfectly to the present scenario: “6. The Courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out." 11. As regards the Appellant, the purportedly specific allegations levelled against him are also obscure in nature. The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out." 11. As regards the Appellant, the purportedly specific allegations levelled against him are also obscure in nature. Even if the allegations and the case of the prosecution is taken at its face value, apart from the bald allegations without any specifics of time, date or place, there is no incriminating material found by the prosecution or rather produced by the complainant to substantiate the ingredients of “cruelty” under section 498A IPC, as recently observed in the case of Jaydedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda & Ors. v. State of Gujarat and Rajesh Chaddha v. State of Uttar Pradesh. The Complainant has admittedly failed to produce any medical records or injury reports, x-ray reports, or any witnesses to substantiate her allegations. We cannot ignore the fact that the Complainant even withdrew her second Complaint dt. 06.12.1999 six days later on 12.12.1999. There is also no evidence to substantiate the purported demand for dowry allegedly made by the Appellant or his family and the investigative agencies in their own prudence have not added sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 to the chargesheet. 13. It is rather unfortunate that the Complainant being an officer of the State has initiated criminal machinery in such a manner, where the aged parents-in-law, five sisters and one tailor have been arrayed as an accused. Notwithstanding the possibility of truth behind the allegations of cruelty, this growing tendency to misuse legal provisions has time and again been condemned by this Court. The observations in Dara Lakshmi Narayana & Ors. v. State of Telangana & Anr., Preeti Gupta & Anr. v. State of Jharkhand & Anr. aptly captures this concern.” 15. Coming back to the present case, as noted earlier, except bald and specious allegations against the petitioners who are the in laws of the complainant, nothing more is alleged and therefore FIR is found to be abuse of process of law against the present petitioners. The petitioners therefore should not be relegated to face trial as it would be an absurd process. Notably, even no evidence is produced to support allegations of cruelty or harassment or demand of any articles or specific cash amount for specific purpose is produced alongside FIR. The petitioners therefore should not be relegated to face trial as it would be an absurd process. Notably, even no evidence is produced to support allegations of cruelty or harassment or demand of any articles or specific cash amount for specific purpose is produced alongside FIR. All these support hollowness in FIR, rather proves that in laws are arraigned to build pressure. In such circumstances, forcing petitioners to face turbulence of trial would be unjust. 16. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned FIR being C.R.No.11206044211145 of 2021 registered with A Division Mehsana Police Station as well as all consequential proceedings arise out of the said FIR and set aside qua the petitioners. Rule is made absolute. Direct Service permitted.