Inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings are restrictive and should not be invoked to evaluate disputed factual claims. Where investigations establish a prima facie case for non-compoundable offences, allegations of malicious intent must be substantiated through the trial process rather than summary adjudication.

JUDGMENT :

CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI, J.

1. The present criminal miscellaneous petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of FIR No. 73/2020 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Alwar for offences under Sections 498-A, 406, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 67-A of the Information Technology Act, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, including the criminal case bearing No. 23/58/20 pending before the Court of learned Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate No. 4, Alwar.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned FIR has been lodged with malafide intention and is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. It is contended that the complainant– respondent No. 2 has earlier lodged two FIRs against the petitioner on the same set of allegations, which were either compromised or resulted in proceedings wherein the complainant herself denied the allegations of dowry demand and cruelty. It is further submitted that the present FIR is a third attempt to harass the petitioner and to pressurize him, and therefore, the same deserves to be quashed. It has also been argued that even if the allegations made in the FIR are taken at their face value, no prima facie offence under the alleged provisions is made out.

3. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “T.T. Antony Vs State of Kerala & Ors.” AIR 2001 SC 2637.

4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 have vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that the allegations made in the FIR disclose commission of cognizable offences. It is contended that after due investigation, the police has already filed charge-sheet and the learned trial Court has taken cognizance and framed charges against the petitioner. It is thus submitted that the matter involves disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

6. At the outset, it is to be noted that the scope of interference by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR or criminal proceedings is extremely limited. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “ State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal ”, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, has laid down the categories of cases wherein such power can be exercised. It has consistently been held that at the stage of quashing, the Court is only required to see whether the allegations made in the FIR prima facie disclose the commission of any offence, and it is not permissible to conduct a meticulous appreciation of evidence.

7. In the present case, the FIR contains specific allegations against the petitioner with regard to cruelty, demand of dowry and other acts constituting offences under Sections 498-A, 406 and 506 IPC as well as Section 67-A of the I.T. Act. The truthfulness or otherwise of these allegations is a matter of trial and cannot be adjudicated at this stage.

8. The contention of the petitioner is that earlier FIRs were lodged and compromise has been arrived at between the parties; however, in the considered opinion of this Court, this by itself does not render the present FIR liable to be quashed. Each complaint has to be examined on its own facts and circumstances, merely because previous disp