living in different cities and had never visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion, it is observed. After making detailed consideration of such aspects and the relevant authorities, in the light of the facts obtained in that case, the Hon'ble Apex court held that it would unfair to compel the appellants to undergo the rigmarole of a criminal trial and thought it fit to quash the complaint against the appellants. Consequently, the order of the trial court was set aside and the appeal was allowed. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the facts obtained in that case is more or less the same as obtained in this case. It is contended by the learned counsel that even going by the contention of the first respondent the marriage between herself and the first accused was solemnised on 9.9.2010 and on 27.9.2010 itself she left for Gulf Countries along with her husband. Thus, it is evident that immediately after the marriage she lived in the matrimonial home hardly for a very few days and thereafter, left for Gulf Countries along with her husband. According to the statement recorded from her on 5.11.2012 she came back to India and to the native place thereafter, for the purpose of performing a ritualistic function of her son in 2011. The only allegation which she raised against the mother-in-law, the 2nd petitioner is that on 15.11.2011 while the child was being fed with milk she pulled her hands. The allegation against the brother-in-law, the 4th petitioner is that while she was living
