Mrs. Sabina, J.: - Petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR No.95 dated 28.6.2012 (Annexure P-1) under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short) registered at Police Station Fatehgarh Sahib and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Sarabjit Kaur, daughter of respondent No.2, got married to Iqbal Singh on 25.11.2009. Thereafter, Iqbal Singh left for New Zealand. Iqbal Singh again visited India and moved requisite papers for grant of Visa to his wife on 14.3.2010. Sarabjit Kaur reached New Zealand on 8.8.2010. Within one week, an application for her Permanent Resident Card was made. Sarabjit Kaur was confirmed as permanent resident of New Zealand on 14.10.2011. Mother of the petitioner reached New Zealand on 20.7.2010. A dispute arose between Sarabjit Kaur and her husband as she (Sarabjit Kaur) wanted that mother of her husband should not live in the same house. So far as petitioner is concerned, she got married on 20.2.2011 and is residing in her matrimonial home. Petitioner did not and could not interfere in the matrimonial life of her brother and his wife as they were residing in New Zealand, whereas, petitioner was residing in India.

3. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the petition.

None has appeared for respondent No.2 despite service.

4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be allowed.

5. In the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp(1) Supreme Court Cases 335, the Apex Court has held as under:-

“The following categories of cases can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C. Can be exercised by the High Court 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 chennelised 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 complainant/respondent No.2, 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 no 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 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 concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted)to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceedings is maliciously instituted with an ulterio