IMPORTANT POINT
Power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases for the Court would not be justified in embarking upon an inquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the First Information Report or in the complaint that the extraordinary or the inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whim or caprice.

JUDGMENT

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 19th August, 2009 passed by the Jharkhand High Court dismissing the petition filed by the appellant herein praying for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings of Balumath P.S. Case No. 68 of 2006 (corresponding to G.R. Case No. 445 of 2006) in which cognizance was taken of the offence under Section 304B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant and others.

3. The informant filed a First Information Report that his daughter was married to the appellant herein in the year 2002, as per the Hindu rites and custom and that at the time of her marriage, informant had given sufficient dowry. It was stated therein that the informant’s daughter complained about the torture meted out to her by the father-in-law and the mother-in-law to her husband, the present appellant who allegedly did not pay any heed. It was also alleged that on 29th September, 2006, father-in-law and the mother-in-law talked to the accused on telephone and in a well-planned conspiracy caused death of the daughter of the informant. On receipt of the aforesaid information a case was registered, thereafter the police started investigation. After the completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed on 14th April, 2001. An order was also passed on 17th April, 2007, by the Magistrate taking cognizance which is also assailed in the present case. The appellant was granted bail by the High Court on 10th April, 2007.

4. After submission of the aforesaid charge sheet and passing of the order taking cognizance, the appellant filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for quashing of the proceeding in the aforesaid manner. The High Court considered the pleas raised by the parties and thereafter held that the case is a case of dowry death and that the appellant is the husband. It was also held that the points taken by the appellant before the High Court are rather a defence case and that the same relates to factual dispute. The Court also referred to the decision of this Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal reported in1 1992 Suppl. 1 SCC 335 and also to the settled position of law that genuineness of the allegations/charge is an issue to be tried and the Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot delve into such factual controversy so as to quash the proceedings.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has challenged the legality of the aforesaid order passed by the High Court on the ground that no case is made out against the appellant either under Section 304B or under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code as according to him there is no such allegation in the First Information Report specifically against the appellant. He has also submitted that the order taking cognizance is wrong and disclosed non-application of mind by the Magistrate for even prior to passing of the said order charge sheet was already filed. He also took us through the contents of the case diary wherein statements of seven witnesses have been recorded to substantiate his submission as aforesaid.

6. Counsel appearing for the respondents, however, submits that this is not the stage when this Court should embark upon a factual inquiry as regards the materials on record. It is also pointed out to us that in fact the appellant would have such an effective opportunity even at the stage when charges are framed. Counsel also submits that it is possible and also permissible to alter the charges and frame charges under some other provisions of law if it appears to the Court that material for framing such charge under other sections are also available on record.

7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, we may appropriately refer to a decision of this Court in Shanti & Another v. State of Haryana reported in2 AIR 1991 SC 1226. What was considered in that case by this Court was a case o