At the initial stage of investigation, the F.I.R. should be taken as the truth, and the veracity of the allegations should be determined by the trial court.

1. - The petitioners have prayed for quashing of F.I.R., namely F.I.R. No.223/2012, registered at Vaishali Nagar, Police Station, Jaipur for offences under Sections 376, 420, 406, 504 read with 34 of I.P.C.

2. Mr. A.S. Narang, learned counsel for the petitioners, has vehemently raised the following contentions before this Court:-

3. Firstly, the prosecutrix has lodged a false complaint against the petitioners, which was sent for further investigation under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. On the basis of the false complaint, a F.I.R. was registered for the aforementioned offences.

4. Secondly, the falsity of the cases is apparent from the fact that she claimed that the petitioner No.1, Dhirendra Nath assured her that he had legally married her by filling parting on her hair with Vermilion power. According to her, they lived as husband and wife between 2003 to 2008. Since she was his "lawful wedded wife", he continued to have physical relationship with her. However, the said complaint was not filed till four-years later i.e. 09.05.2012. The inordinate delay in filing the complaint is a pointer to the fact that a false case is being hoisted upon the petitioners.

5. Thirdly, there are certain contradictions between the F.I.R., and the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. This again reveals the falsity of the case.

6. Fourthly, the prosecutrix herself gave an affidavit in which she clearly stated that she has no relationship with Dhirendra Nath, petitioner No.1. Moreover, she has also given certain affidavits saying that she is married to one Sanjay Khanna as is apparent from Annexures 15 and 16, attached with the petition. Thus, her story that she was married to Dhirendra Nath is absolutely false.

7. Fifthly, it is she who had borrowed money from Dhirendra Nath; it is she who had issued a cheque in favour of Dhirendra Nath. However, as the said cheque bounced on 27.07.2012, thus, in order to save her skin, she lodged a false complaint against Dhirendra Nath and his family members.

8. As far as petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are concerned, the learned counsel has contended that there is a contradiction in the stand taken by the prosecutrix as to when and how she met petitioner No.2, Gajendra Nath, the brother of Dhirendra Nath. Moreover, according to the prosecutrix herself, she had met petitioner No.3, Smt. Rama Devi, mother of the Dhirendra Nath. However, no offence can be said to be made out against Smt. Rama Devi. Since the F.I.R., is absolutely a false complaint, learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed that the same should be quashed by this Court.

9. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the F.I.R. as well as the other documents submitted along with the petition.

10. It is, indeed, trite to state that the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for interfering with the F.I.R. is extremely limited one. In catena of cases the Apex Court has held that the Court should take the F.I.R. as the truth for the time being. In case, the ingredients of the alleged offence are prima-facie made out, then the Court should not interfere with the F.I.R. For, investigation is arena of the Police; the veracity of the F.I.R. can be investigated only by the Police. Therefore, while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the High Court should refrain from entering into the said arena. Further-more, while exercising its power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., at the initial stage of investigation, the High Court is not permitted to consider the evidence, which may be produced by the defense during the course of the trial. At the initial stage, when the investigation is in progress, to enter into defense evidence would be a premature step. Therefore, the High Court should be weary of interfering with the investigation and in quashing the F.I.R. at the out set.

11. While deciding this case, these well known principles will have to be kept in mind.

12. The issue whether the F.I.R. is a delayed one?