ORAL ORDER

1. This Court has heard learned counsel Mr. Jigar Gadhavi and Ms. Shivangi Rana for the respective parties.

2. Mr. Gadhavi, learned counsel for the applicants, upon instructions, does not press this application qua applicant no.3-husband namely Dharmendrakumar Ishwarbhai Patel.

Hence, the present application stands disposed of as not pressed qua applicant no.3-husband namely Dharmendrakumar Ishwarbhai Patel.

3. By this application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the applicants who are mother-in-law and father-in-law of second respondent, have preferred this quashing petition in relation to the FIR being C.R.NO.11187008200875 of 2020 registered with Virpur Police Station, Mahisagar for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 7 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

4. Brief facts giving rise to file present application are that, marriage of second respondent Ms. Shweta Patel was solemnized with accused no.3-husband in the year of 2010-11. The duo-wife-husband are serving in a Government School and have been posted at the Taluka School at Jamkhambhaliya. According to the case of second respondent, initial period of ten years of marriage life went smooth and thereafter, the conduct of the husband has been changed totally. It is alleged that, by different sim cards, he was talking on mobile phone and when he was cautioned by the wife, he hurled abusive and caused physical injuries. He used to withdraw the entire salary of the wife and all the ornaments and necessary documents of the house being illegally retained by him with ulterior motive. However, for the safety and future of her son, the wife tolerated all the nonsense acts and deeds of husband. In the year of 2019, she was severely beaten up by the husband and asked her to give divorce to him against which he had shown his willingness to pay Rs.15 lacs and lastly, pressurized her to manage the funds for purchasing the car. In such circumstances, she has lodged the aforesaid FIR, inter alia, alleging that during the span of marriage, she was subjected to harassment by the husband and his relatives as the parents also abated and aided the act of cruelty allegedly committed by the husband.

5. The applicants who are parents of husband, have preferred this quashing application mainly on the ground that, since the date of marriage they are living separately at the village and they have nothing to do with the matrimonial dispute of the husband and wife and therefore, with ulterior motive, without any cause, they have been impleaded as accused and same is nothing but abuse and misuse of process of law and court.

6. Mr. Jigar Gadhavi, learned counsel appearing for and on behalf of the applicants has submitted that, due to negative attitude of husband, the parents have been falsely impleaded by alleging vague and general allegations of abatement in commission of cruelty and therefore, the allegations made in the FIR if accepted as it is in its entirety, do no disclose any offence against the applicants and thus, this is a fit case for exercising inherent powers of this Court.

7. Ms. Shinvangi Rana, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent, opposing the application, has submitted that, the court may not dwell into the disputed questions of facts as raised herein and therefore, the allegations as made establish the prima-facie case against the applicants and in that view of the matter, no case is made out for exercising powers of this Court.

8. The Apex Court in number of cases, has laid down the scope and ambit of Courts powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Every High Court has inherent power to act ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone exists or to prevent the abuse of process of court.

9. In State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, the Apex Court, after referring its various earlier judgments relating to the exercise of extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indi