The court's jurisdiction to quash an FIR under its inherent jurisdiction is limited, and the investigation is the arena of the Police. The court should be weary of entering into the said area and should not interfere with the investigation at the initial stage unless the case is brought under one of the eight circumstances mentioned in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra).

1. - The petitioners have prayed for quashing of the FIR No.340/12, registered at Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur for offences under Sections 420, 406, 120B IPC and under Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 10.9.2012, the complainant-respondent No.1, Mohan Dev Sharma, filed a criminal complaint against the accused-petitioners for offences under Sections 420, 406 & 120B IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur. He claimed that after formal meetings between the complainant and the accused petitioners, the marriage of his daughter, Ms. Shilpa and Mr. Yash Sharma, the accused petitioner No.1, was settled in June, 2011. The marriage was to be solemnized on 27.1.2012 at Indore. For the purpose of expenses regarding arrangements for marriage, the complainant had given four cheques amounting to Rs. 4,20,000/- to the accused petitioners. He further gave a sum of Rs. 2,80,000/- to the accused-petitioners. It was further averred that on 21.10.2011 and 25.10.2011 cash amount of Rs. .5 Lacs each (totalling Rs. .10 Lacs) was given to one Mr. Arvind and Mr. Bharat, who were the employees of Mr. Punit Mittal, one of the accused persons. Mr. Punit Mittal is known to accused petitioner No.2. Besides the cash amount, other articles, worth Lacs of rupees, were also given to the accused petitioners and a huge amount was incurred on other arrangements for the marriage. But, the accused petitioners kept on demanding more money and a car and other articles in the marriage. When the complainant showed his inability to fulfill the heavy demands of dowry of the accused-petitioners, they broke the engagement. It was further averred that out of the total cash amount and articles given to the accused-petitioners, still Rs. 9,80,000/- have been kept by the petitioners. They have not return the said amount to the complainant despite his request. Hence, the offences under Sections 420, 406, 120B IPC were alleged against the petitioners.

3. The learned Magistrate sent the complaint for further investigation to the Police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Thereafter, on 12.9.2012, a formal FIR, namely FIR No.340/12, was registered at Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur for the aforesaid offences against the accused persons. Hence, this petition for quashing of the said FIR.

4. Mr. Kamlakar Sharma, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, has raised the following contentions before this court: firstly, the engagement between Yash Sharma, petitioner No.1, and daughter of the complainant-respondent No.1 Mohan Dev Sharma, namely Ms. Shilpa, was broken in December, 2011. According to the complainant, part of the money, given by him, and other articles were returned to him by the petitioners. However, the FIR was not lodged till September, 2012. Thus, there is an inordinate delay of nine months. The delay has not been explained by the complainant. The delay casts doubt on the veracity of the allegations made by the complainant.

5. Secondly, that according to the complainant himself, on 21.10.2011, Rs. .5 Lacs in cash were paid by him to one Mr. Arvind and one Mr. Bharat. Both of these persons happen to be the employees of Mr. Punit Mittal. Even subsequently, the complainant alleges that he has paid another Rs. .5 Lacs on 25.10.2011 to these two persons. However, Mr. Arvind and Mr. Bharat have not been arrayed as accused persons by the complainant. Moreover, although Mr. Punit Mittal has been arrayed as an accused by the complainant, but the petitioners do not have any relationship with him.

6. Thirdly, since the money was paid by the complainant to the petitioners in order to make the marriage arrangements, as the marriage was scheduled to take place in Indore, the entrustment of the amount was only to one person and not to all the three accused persons. Moreover, the amount was never entruste