1. By this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ applicants have prayed for the following relief’s :

22(a) to allow this application;

(b) to issue appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned FIR (Annexure A) being M. Case No. 5/2015 registered with Kheda Town Police Station, District Kheda and further be pleased to quash and set aside the further proceedings in connection with the impugned FIR;

(c) pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this application, to stay the investigation – further proceedings of the impugned FIR (Annexure A) being M. Case No. 5/2015 registered with Kheda Town Police Station, District Kheda;

(d) to pass any other and further orders as may be deemed fit and proper to this Hon'ble Court.

2. The case of the first informant may be summarized as under:

2.1 The respondent no.2 – original complainant lodged a complaint in writing in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kheda, for the offence punishable under Sections-323, 504, 498(A), 506(2) r/w.114 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections-3 & 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

2.2 The writ applicant no.1 is the husband, the writ applicant no.2 is the father-in-law and the writ applicant no.3 is the mother-in-law of the complainant. The complainant got married with the writ applicant no.1 herein on 12/12/2008. In the complaint, it has been stated that at the time of the marriage, the parents of the complainant gifted certain articles according to their financial capacity, including gold and silver jewellery. Initially, the marital life was quite normal. The applicant no.1, i.e. the husband, took up a job at Singapore. Three months after the departure of the husband to Singapore, the complainant, alongwith her father-in-law and mother-in-law, left for Singapore. It is stated in the complaint that as the husband wanted to buy a house in Singapore, the parents of the complainant helped the son-in-law by giving him Rs.50,00,000/-. According to the complainant, everything was fine at Singapore, but all of a sudden, the behaviour of the husband changed. The complainant has alleged that her husband developed intimacy for one another woman. Since then, the matrimonial disputes cropped up.

2.3 On 22/03/2013, a baby girl was born, viz. Hiya. It is alleged that the husband and his parents were not happy with the birth of a baby girl as they were expecting a baby boy. According to the complainant, on 13/07/2013, she left Singapore and returned to India and since then, she is residing at her parental home. There are many other allegations levelled in the complaint to highlight that there was harassment to the complainant at the end of the applicants.

3. On 03/11/2015, this Court passed the following order:-

Rule returnable on 19.2.2016. Mrs. Hansa Punani, the learned APP waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent No.1. The respondent No. 2 be served directly through the Investigating Officer of the concerned Police Station.

Let there be an ad interim order in terms of para 22(c). Direct service permitted.

4. Thereafter, on 03/11/2017 this Court passed the following order:-

It appears from the materials on record that the applicant No.1 got married to the respondent No.2 on 12th December 2012 at Kheda. Within eight months from the date of marriage, they left for Singapore. The applicants Nos.2 and 3 are the in-laws of the respondent No.2. They also accompanied the son at Singapore. In 2013, a baby girl was born in the wedlock. It appears that thereafter, the problems cropped up. It is alleged by the respondent No.2 that the husband and her parents did not like the baby girl being born. Thereafter, the matrimonial problems cropped up and the respondent No.2 had to return to India along with the new born baby. The daughter, as on date, is aged 5 years. B