The main legal point established in the judgment is that the presence of enough evidence to establish a prima facie case against the accused persons influenced the court's decision to dismiss the petition seeking to quash the FIR.

JUDGMENT

Dinesh Mehta, J. - The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') has been preferred for challenging the FIR No. 211 dated 19.10.2021, registered against the petitioners for offences under Sections 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 in the Police Station, Sadar, Nagaur.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that on perusal of the FIR, no offence for demand of dowry is made out and the complainant has vindictively enroped all the family members of her in-laws including petitioner No. 1 and 3, who are government servants in State of Haryana, only in order to harass them. It was also submitted that petitioner No. 3 is a physically challenged person.

3. While challenging the FIR, learned counsel for the petitioners highlighted that all the dowry articles including the car has been returned back to the complainant.

4. While contending that complainant Monika was residing separately with her husband Shakti Singh in Daadri, he argued that all the family members of the complainant's husband residing separately, have been alleged to be involved in demand of dowry though they never asked for dowry, much less harassing her.

5. Learned counsel relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors. and submitted that on the basis of principles enunciated in this case, the FIR in question deserves to be quashed.

6. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that the investigation in the matter is over and after thorough investigation, the Investigating Officer has found the offences under Sections 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code to have been made out against petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 so also against complainant's husband, namely, Shakti Singh. He prayed that the FIR in question and investigation does not call for any interference as there is enough evidence showing that the above referred petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 and complainant's husband have been harassing her by asking for dowry, in spite of the fact that huge dowry was given by the complainant's family.

7. Mr. Mehriya, learned counsel appearing for the complainant, highlighted a striking fact that immediately before the marriage, complainant's father sent a sum of Rs. 9,50,000/- through RTGS to Jagmohan Motors Pvt. Ltd. for purchase of a vehicle and surprisingly, the vehicle was purchased in the name of Sandeep, complainant's brother-in-law. That apart, the registration certificate shows that complainant's mother-in-law, Rajbala has been shown as a nominee.

8. While raising serious doubt on petitioners' conduct, learned counsel submitted that there was no reason for the petitioners to buy a car in the name of Sandeep Kumar (complainant's brother-in-law) and not in the name of complainant or her husband.

9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material on record, this Court is of the firm view that after conducting thorough investigation, the Investigating Officer has collected enough evidence evincing a prima-facie case to be made out against the accused persons.

10. The evidence collected by the Investigating Officer cannot be ignored by this Court and even the contents of the FIR prima-facie indicate commission of offences under Sections 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code by the accused persons.

11. Moreso, considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the complainant that cash, that was given during the wedding and the jewellery that was gifted, has not been recovered and further because of the fact that the car in question had been purchased in the name of petitioner No. 3 - Sandeep Kumar in spite of the fact that the amount was transferred by the complainant's father, this Court is of the view that conduct of the petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 has been suspicious and the accusation made by the complainant needs to be gone into and the