JUDGMENT

Sharad Kumar Gupta, J. - Petitioner has preferred this CRMP under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in brevity Cr.P.C.) for quashing the FIR No. 71/2017 dated 4-5-2017 registered at Police Station Pusaur, Distt. Raigarh against him and his family members for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (In short I.P.C.), which may culminate in filing of charge sheet.

2. In brief the petitioner's case is that respondent No. 2 Smt. Satyawati Sao is his wife. She filed an application against him and his family members on the basis of which an FIR was registered against him and his family members for the offence punishable under Section 498- A/34. The police had not gone to the root of the case and without making preliminary inquiry registered the case. Earlier he had filed a divorce petition against her, in counter she lodged the FIR. The complaint was filed on the false ground. The application was filed with ulterior motive to pressurize him.

3. In brief the case of the respondent No. 1/State is that from the application of respondent No. 2 cognizable offence was made out thus FIR was lodged. The petition is devoid of merit.

4. In brief the case of the respondent No. 2 is that petitioner and his family members used to harass her on account of demand of dowry. Thus, she had given an application to PS Pusaur.

5. Counsel for the petitioner argued that from the face of application prima facie no case is made out against him. FIR is delayed by 4 years which indicates the malafide intention of respondent No. 2. As per the document of Family Welfare Committee, Raigarh dated 19-1-2018 no case is made out regarding demand of dowry and cruelty.

6. Counsel for the respondents argued that contents of the application indicate that prima facie cognizable offence punishable under Section 498-A, IPC is made out.

7. In the case is hand the impugned FIR transpires that allegedly 3 months after the marriage petitioner and his family members had asked the respondent No. 2 that at the time of returning back from her maternal house she will bring 4 wheeler, Rs. 50,000/- cash, costly clothes, large utensils. They ousted her so many times on account of not fulfilling the demand of dowry. He left her in her maternal house. He and his family members have threatened her that if she will return back then she will be killed.

8. In the matter of State of Haryana and others -v- Choudhary Bhajan Lal and others, (1992) AIR SC 604 , Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in para 108 as under:-

"108. ..................... we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated unde