ORDER :

1. The petitioner has preferred this misc.petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No. 0002/2023 registered at Police Station Hamirwas, District Churu for the offence under Sections 498-A, 406, 313 of IPC.

2. Petitioner, present in person submits that a totally false FIR has been registered against him by the complainant as he was on duty at the time of occurrence. He further submits that there is no question of cruelty towards the complainant by him. Thus, the complainant only with a view to harass and pressurize him, filed the present FIR. Therefore, it is prayed that the FIR may be quashed.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the prayer made by the petitioner.

4. I have considered the arguments advanced before me and carefully gone through FIR.

5. From the perusal of FIR, it is evident that specific allegations of demand of dowry as well as cruelty towards the complainant has been levelled against the petitioner. Therefore, at this stage it cannot be said that offences are not made out against the petitioner. As also police has found the offences proved against the petitioner and notice under Section 41(A) Cr.P.C. has also been served upon the petitioner. In these circumstances, it can not be said that FIR is frivolous. Furthermore, FIR cannot be quashed.

6. Hon'ble 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 prima-facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

2. Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

4. Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the acc