The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's power to prevent abuse of the process of the court and to ensure that criminal prosecution is not used as an instrument of harassment or for seeking private vendetta or with ulterior motive to pressurize accused or to settle the score.

ORDER :

1. This application is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘Code’ for short) for the following reliefs :

“7(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to quash and set aside the proceedings being Criminal Misc.Application No.121 of 2016 pending in the Court of Metropolitan court at Ahmedabad, filed by the respondent no.2 herein.

(B) Pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this application, Your Lordships may be pleased to stay the further proceedings being Criminal Misc.Application No.121 of 2016, pending in the Court of Metropolitan court at Ahmedabad, filed by the respondent no.2 herein.

(C) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to grant such other and further relief and/or order in the interest of justice.”

2. The brief facts as stated in the application are such that the applicant no.1 and the respondent no.2 got married as per Muslim Rites and Customs on 1.5.2013, they prepared Talaknama on 6.6.2013, thereafter, after the requisite waiting period as per the Muslim laws was over, the applicant no.1 got married with another lady on 4.9.2013. On 1.9.2013, the respondent no.2 lodged FIR against the applicants under various sections of Indian Penal Code and Dowry Prohibition Act, thereafter, on 3.9.2016, the respondent no.2 filed Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.121 of 2016 before the learned Metropolitan Court at Ahmedabad under various provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, on 4.9.2016, the respondent no.2 published in the news that the applicant no.1 and his family members have harassed the respondent no.2. It is stated that the respondent no.2 lodged another complaint on 5.9.2016 against the applicant no.1 and one another accused that they intimated the respondent no.2 stating to withdraw the complaint filed before the Mahila police station. That the applicant issued defamation notice upon the publisher and claimed damages upon the publishers against the false and fabricated article published by the respondent no.2. The applicants filed Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.30004 of 2016 before this Court challenging the FIR filed under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code and Dowry Prohibition Act, wherein Rule was issued and status quo was granted in favour of the applicants. This application is filed to quash and set aside the proceedings of Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.121 of 2016.

3. Heard learned advocates for the applicant, learned APP for the respondent -state. Though served, respondent no.2 has not filed any appearance.

3.1 Learned advocate Mr.Keyur Vyas submitted that the complainant has not proceeded further with the complaint before the learned trial Court. He has further produced the case status of Criminal Misc.Application No.121 of 2016 pending before the learned Metropolitan Court, Ahmedabad and raised serious contentions about the conduct of the present respondent no.2 and submitted that earlier also, proceedings under the Indian Penal Code and Dowry Prohibition Act are initiated against the applicants, against which the present applicants have approached this Court by way of Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 30004 of 2016, wherein initially, Rule is issued and interim relief is granted in the said application. Thereafter, the said application was disposed of by directing the present applicants to approach the trial Court.

3.2 He has also submitted that on bare reading of the impugned complaint, no allegations under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act can be considered as made out. The Talaknama is also executed between the parties much prior to this complaint, which is also part of the record of the present petition. Even the proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is filed, which is dismissed for default.

3.3 Therefore, learned advocate for the applicants submit that, in view of this factual background and also considering the conduct of the complainant and, more particularly, when no case is made out un