* 1 * Cri.Appln.3531.2010 12.7.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3531 OF 2010 Mr. Kalpesh Gajanan Ganpule & 2 Ors. ......Applicants V/S. Shruti Kalpesh Ganapule & another ......Respondents Mrs. Vishrant Navale, Advocate for the applicants. Mr. Prashant Patil, Advocate for respondent no.1. Mr. V.B. Kondedeshmukh, APP for State-respondent no.2. CORAM :- Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. 12th July, 2011. P.C. :- 1. This application is filed under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code for quashing of the complaint in Misc. Application No. 317 of 2009 pending on the file of 5th Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ulhasnagar under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 22 and 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. 2. The applicants are the husband and parents-in-law of respondent no.1-the complainant. Ms. Navale, the learned counsel for the * 2 * Cri.Appln.3531.2010 12.7.2011 applicants states that she does not press the application for quashing of the complaint on behalf of applicant no.1-the husband. She presses the application only on behalf of applicants no.2 and 3, the parents-in-law. 3. Mr. Patil, the learned counsel for respondent no.1, submits that the petition filed at a belated stage should not be considered by the Court since the trial in the complaint has already started and that the evidence of respondent no.1 has been partly recorded. 4. With the help of the counsel for both sides, I have gone through the entire complaint, a copy of which is annexed at Exhibit-A to the application. Perusal of the complaint shows that the reference to applicants no.2 and 3 therein is found only in four paragraphs i.e. paragraphs 1, 7, 10 and 13. At paragraph-1 respondent no.1 alleges that applicants no.2 and 3 were not happy with the marriage because there was no dowry given at the time of the marriage. At paragraph-7, it is stated that all the applicants and one of the friends of applicant no.1 were continuously demanding respondent no.1 to take loan of Rs. 6,00,000/- to purchase a car. Paragraph-10 of the application, refers to an incident when respondent no.1 and her parents went to meet applicants no.2 and 3 at their house on 30th August, 2009. When they were at the door, applicant no.2 insulted them by not opening the door of his house. He had also arrogantly asked respondent no.1 and her * 3 * Cri.Appln.3531.2010 12.7.2011 parents to go away. It appears that after some persuasion, he had opened the door and allowed the respondent and her mother and brother to enter the house. But, thereafter he did not show any interest in the settlement talks and started making allegations against respondent no.1. Paragraph-13 of the complaint refers to a complaint filed by respondent no.1 under Section 498A Indian Penal Code and the inability of the police to recover the gold ornaments worth Rs.80,000/-. It is not the case of respondent no.1 that the gold ornaments were either entrusted to applicants no.2 and 3 or are in their possession. Thus, perusal of the complaint shows that allegations made therein do not disclose any offence as against applicants no.2 and 3. In that circumstance, continuing the criminal proceedings against applicants no.2 and 3 who are aged 66 years and 59 years respectively would be clearly an abuse of the process of law on the part of respondent no.1. Though the trial has already commenced with the recording of part of evidence of respondent no.1 it is well established that this Court in its inherent powers under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code can look into the complaint for its viability. The complaint herein against applicants no.2 and 3 does not disclose any material whatsoever against them and hence cannot be allowed to continue. Hence the order. * 4 * Cri.Appln.3531.2010 12.7.2011 5. The application on behalf of applicant no.1 is dismissed as not pressed. The application on behalf of applicants no.2 and 3 is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b). [SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J]