J.B. Pardiwala, J.

1. Although the respondent No. 1-original first informant has been served with the notice issued by this Court, yet she has choosen not to remain present either in person or through an Advocate and oppose his application. Rule returnable forthwith. Ms. Pathak, the learned APP, waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent No. 2.

2. By this application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the applicants seek to invoke the inherent powers of this Court praying for quashing of the first information report being II-C.R. No. 7 of 2015 registered with the Mahila Police Station, Bhavnagar for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 504, 506(2), 323 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. On 25th June, 2015, the following order was passed:

"Mr. Umesh A. Trivedi, learned Advocate for the applicant states, upon instructions, that he does not press the application qua applicant No. 1-Chirag Girishbhai Mehta, husband of respondent No. 2-Complainant. He prays for permission to withdraw the application qua applicant No. 1. He is permitted to do so. The application qua applicant No. 1 stands withdrawn. The application survives only with respect to applicant Nos. 2 to 8.

Heard the learned Advocate for the applicant.

It is submitted that applicant Nos. 4 and 5 reside separately at Mumbai from applicant Nos. 1 to 3 who are husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law of respondent No. 2. Applicant Nos. 6 to 8 reside at Bhavnagar. However, all the family members have been roped in on the basis of general allegations which do not constitute the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

Issue Notice returnable on 22.7.2015.

Ms. Chetna M. Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice for respondent No. 2.

No coercive action be taken against applicant Nos. 2 to 8, till then."

4. Thus, it appears that this application was not pressed so far as the applicant No. 1, i.e. the husband is concerned. It appears that since this Court declined to entertain this application so far as the husband is concerned, the investigation proceeded against him and charge-sheet was filed, which culminated in the Criminal Case No. 8072 of 2015 pending in the Court of the learned 12th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhavnagar. The husband was put to trial and, ultimately, vide judgment and order dated 22nd December, 2016 passed by the Trial Court, he came to be acquitted of all the offences. The copy of the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court is placed on record. It appears that the learned APP is not sure whether any acquittal appeal has been filed by the State against the judgment and order of acquittal or any appeal has been filed by the original first informant.

5. In such circumstances referred to above, I am now left with to consider the case so far as the applicant Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 are concerned.

6. The case of the first informant is as under:

6.1 The applicant No. 2 is the mother-in-law, the applicant No. 3 is the father-in-law, the applicant No. 4 is the brother of the father-in-law, the applicant No. 5 is the son of the brother of the father-in-law, the applicant No. 6 is the sister-in-law, the applicant No. 7 is the husband of the sister-in-law and the applicant No. 8 is the aunt of the husband of the first informant.

6.2 In the first information report, it has been stated that the first informant got married to Chiragbhai Girishbhai Mehta on 4th December, 2007. As usual, it appears that soon after the marriage, matrimonial disputes cropped up between the husband and wife. The first informant has levelled general, vague and sweeping allegations of harassment and demand of dowry.

7. Mr. Trivedi, the learned Counsel appearing for the applicants would submit that in the wake of the acquittal of the husband by the Trial Court, nothing survives in the matter. If the allegations against the husba