1. In spite of service of notice, there is no appearance on behalf of the respondent No.2 and therefore, the matter is heard finally.

2. The present petition has been filed for quashment of FIR by the petitioners who are the family members.

3. The facts of the case reveal that the respondent No.2 Smt. Ashima Khan was married to Shri Asif Khan who is the petitioner No.4 and she has lodged a FIR in the year 2014 stating that she is being harassed since 2005 by her in-laws. On the basis of the FIR, a crime has been registered against all the family members for an offence under section 498A/34 of IPC. The FIR lodged in the matter is on record and the same reads as under:-

^^eSa mDr irs ij jgrh g¡wA esjh 'kknh o"kZ 2005 esa esjs ek¡ firk us vkfjQ [kku iq= vktkn [kka fuoklh gosyh fiNokM ?kkleaMh ls eqfLye jhfr fjokt ls dh FkhA esjs firk us vius lkeFkZ ds vuqlkj nku ngst fn;k FkkA 'kknh ds ckn ls gh esjs ifr vkfjQ [kka] lkl lkaojk [kka] tsB bj'kkn [kka] vjln [kka] nsoj vkflQ [kka lHkh eq>s ngst ds fy, rkus nsdj vk, fnu ijs'kku djus yxs vkSj eq>s esjs ifjokj okyksa ls ckrphr o feyus ugh nsrs FksA dbZ ckj bu yksxksa us esjh ekjihV dhA ijlkas fnukad 26-2-2014 dks esjs nkÅ ds HkkbZ vQrkQ dqjS'kh tehu [kku rFkk esjh cgu usgk [kku eq>ls feyus vk, rc eSaus ?kVuk dh vkichrh iwjh crkbZ fd ;s yksx lHkh feydj vk;s fnu eq>s 'kkjhfjd rFkk ekufld :i ls izrkfM+r djrs gSa] rks mUgksaus eq>s le>k;k fd ifjokj ls lkeatL; cukdj jgks ysfdu ;s yksx ugh ekus budh 'kkjhfjd] ekufld] izrkfM+rk ls esa dkQh ijs'kku gks pqdh g¡wA lks fjiksVZ djrh gw¡ dk;Zokgh dh tk,A**

4. In the FIR, statement has been made that she is being harassed since 2005 by in-laws and other family members which includes brother-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant. There are allegations made in the FIR on the basis of which offence under section 498A/34 is made out.

5. The apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, reported in (2012)10 SCC 741, in paragraph No.20, 25 and 28 has held as under :-

“20. Coming to the facts of this case, when the contents of the FIR is perused, it is apparent that there are no allegations against Kumari Geeta Mehrotra and Ramji Mehrotra except casual reference of their names who have been included in the FIR but mere casual reference of the names of the family members in a matrimonial dispute without allegation of active involvement in the matter would not justify taking cognizance against them overlooking the fact borne out of experience that there is a tendency to involve the entire family members of the household in the domestic quarrel taking place in a matrimonial dispute specially if it happens soon after the wedding.

25. However, we deem it appropriate to add by way of caution that we may not be misunderstood so as to infer that even if there are allegation of overt act indicating the complicity of the members of the family named in the FIR in a given case, cognizance would be unjustified but what we wish to emphasize by highlighting is that, if the FIR as it stands does not disclose specific allegation against accused more so against the co-accused specially in a matter arising out of matrimonial bickering, it would be clear abuse of the legal and judicial process to mechanically send the named accused in the FIR to undergo the trial unless of course the FIR discloses specific allegations which would persuade the Court to take cognisance of the offence alleged against the relatives of the main accused who are prima facie not found to have indulged in physical and mental torture of the complainant-wife. It is the well settled principle laid down in cases too numerous to mention, that if the FIR did not disclose the commission of an offence, the Court would be justified in quashing the proceedings preventing the abuse of the process of law. Simultaneously, the Courts are expected to adopt a cautious approach in matters of quashing specially in cases of matrimonial dispute whether the F