ORDER :

1. The present misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of FIR No.158/2023, registered at Police Station Goverdhan Vilas, Udaipur for offence under Sections 341 , 323 IPC.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the averment made by respondent No.2 in the FIR is totally false. She lodged the present FIR only for malicious reasons and to trouble the petitioner. It is further contended that earlier, the respondent No.2 got married with one Gangadhar and only after six months, she took divorce from him. She has trapped many people in the same way and has collected money from them. In these circumstances, the FIR lodged by respondent No.2 may be quashed. In support of his argument, learned counsel has relied upon the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Sachin Sukhla v. State of Rajasthan reported in (2021) 1 RLW 83.

3. The respondent No.2, who is present in person and the learned Public Prosecutor have vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner.

4. I have considered the rival arguments and carefully gone through the case-diary.

5. In the statement under Section 161 & 164 Cr.P.C., the complainant has made specific averment against the petitioner that he had beaten her. The injury report in the case-diary reveals that the complainant received three injuries in all. She is now pregnant. The allegations in the complaint prima facie satisfy the essential ingredients of the offence alleged. The police has statutory right to investigate the matter.

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 ab