The court established that quashing an FIR requires clear absence of a prima facie case, and the investigation must be allowed to proceed unless the allegations are patently absurd.

ORDER

1. The present misc. petition has been filed by the petitioners for quashing of FIR No.0068/2022 registered at Police Station Bagdi, Distt. Pali for offence under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 494, 495, 496 of IPC.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant-respondent No.2 submitted a complaint before the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Sojat on 22.04.2022 alleging therein that the complainant and accused-persons are members of same community and the accused-petitioners No.7, 4, 3 & 5 are fatherin-law, mother-in-law, wife and brother-in-law of the complainant. The marriage of the complainant with accused-petitioner No.3-Tara Devi was solemnized as per Hindu rituals on 06.09.2016. At the time of their engagement, accused-petitioner No.7-Bhikha Ram requested the family member of the complainant that he required Rs.7,00,000/- for marriage of his other daughters. The complainant gave Rs.1,00,000/- in his village Karmawas Patta, Rs.3,00,000/- in Vishakhapattanam and Rs.3,00,000/- again in his village Karmawas Patta to accused No.7 at different times, who assured him that they will return the amount after five years on demand. After marriage of the complainant and accused-petitioner No.3, both lived in village Karmawaspatta and thereafter, in Vishakhapattanam from the year 2017 to 2021. On 10.05.2021, accused-petitioner No.5 Raichand told the complainant on telephone that the health condition of father of Tara Devi is not good and asked to send her. The complainant dropped the accused-petitioner No.3-Tara Devi at her village Rampura Kalan, who carried all the ornaments and mobile phone with her. On 12.05.2021, he tried to contact accused-petitioner No.3 as well as other accused-persons, but no one talked to him on phone. The complainant and his relatives, Sayari Devi, Bhera Ram, Kesa Ram, Lachhki Devi went several times to fetch Tara Devi but the accused-petitioners Bhika Ram, Pushpa Devi and Raichand did not allow him to meet her. The complainant also filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act on 15.03.2022 before the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sojat, in which notices have been issued. Despite having knowledge that accusedpetitioner No.3-Tara Devi is legally wedded wife of the complainant, all the accused have performed the marriage of accused-petitioner No.3 with accused-petitioner No.2 Kishan Ram while forging documents in collusion with accused-petitioners Nos.1 & 6, Dharma Ram and Narayan Lal. It is alleged in the FIR that accused-petitioners Bhikha Ram and Pushpa Devi while hatching the criminal conspiracy solemnized marriage of the complainant with Tara Devi and grabbed Rs.7,00,000/- as well as gold-silver ornaments; and did not return the same despite demand. On the basis of the said report, an FIR was registered against the accused for offence under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 494, 495, 496 of IPC.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner No.3-Tara Devi had never solemnized marriage with the complainant-respondent No.2. Since the respondent No.2 was known to family member of Tara Devi, he instigated the petitioner No.3 to live with him in live-in-relationship. When the petitioner No.3-Tara Devi lived with the respondent No.2, he started to torture her and therefore, she left the house. It is further contended that petitioner-Bhikha Ram never took money from the complainant, on the contrary when the petitioner-Tara Devi left the house of the complainant then he concocted the alleged story and lodged a false FIR. It is also argued that the complainant never gave any gold or silver ornaments to the petitioner-Tara Devi nor she took any ornaments from the house of the complainant. The complainant-respondent No.2 has lodged the present FIR after the marriage of the petitioner No.3-Tara Devi with Kishan Ram only to put pressure upon petitioner No.3-Tara Devi to stay with him, whereas, she did not solemnized marriage with him a