The power to quash an FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, and the High Court should not interfere with a legitimate prosecution.

JUDGMENT

1. Instant misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners for quashing of FIR No. 212/2016, dated 17.05.2016 PS Sumerpur for offences under Sections 498A, 406 and 323 IPC.

2. Counsel for the petitioners submits that earlier an FIR has been filed by the respondent-complainant against the petitioners on the same facts in which a compromise has been arrived at between the parties. The respondent-complainant was examined before the trial court and was declared hostile. Thereafter on the basis of the compromise, the petitioner No. 1 Vinesh was acquitted by the competent court of law. Counsel submits that this second FIR has been filed on the same facts and prays for quashing of the same. To buttress his contention, the counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Babubhai & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors. [MANU/SC/0643/2010] .

3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the respondent-complainant submit that after compromise, the respondent-complainant went with the petitioner No. 1 and after some time, the petitioners again started cruelty with her and also kept her dowry articles. In these circumstances, this second FIR has been lodged by the respondent-complainant and there is no question of quashing the same looking to the gravity of the offence.

4. I have considered the arguments advanced before me by the counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the statement of the respondent-complainant.

5. In her statement, the respondent-complainant has specifically deposed that after compromise, she went with the petitioner No. 1 at her matrimonial home and after some time, the petitioners again started cruelty with her and demanded dowry. She further stated that at many occasions the petitioners gave beating to her consequent to which she received internal injuries on her body. She further deposed that the petitioners also kept her gold articles and turned out her from the matrimonial home and they also used abusive language against her.

6. In the case of Babubhai (Surpa) relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner, the Honble Supreme Court has quashed the FIR while observing that the second FIR has been filed on the same facts. The facts of the present case is altogether different. After compromise, the respondent-complainant went with the petitioner No. 1 at her matrimonial home and thereafter again the petitioner started cruelty with her and also gave beating and threw her outside the matrimonial home. On these facts, the respondentcomplainant filed the second FIR. In such circumstances, the present case is altogether different from the case cited by the petitioners.

7. Honble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. v. Choudhary Bhajanlal & Ors. : 1992 Suppl. (1) SCC 335] , laid down guidelines for exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash FIR and criminal proceedings. The Court held:

"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, 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 primafacie constitute any offence or make out a case agains