The court emphasized that the FIR could not be quashed at this stage, especially in the absence of any material collected by the investigating agency and in the absence of any challenge to the cognizance order.

ORDER :

By way of instant petition, a prayer has been made to quash FIR No.37/2019, dated 09.9.2019, under Sections 498-A, 323 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC, registered at Women Police Station at Bhiuli, District Mandi, H.P. and all subsequent criminal proceedings.

2. Petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 are husband and wife. Petitioners No. 2 and 3 are father and mother of petitioner No. 1, respectively. Petitioner No. 4 is his married sister.

3. The marriage between petitioner and respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 08.05.2018. Petitioner was employed in Merchant Navy. On 11.06.2018, petitioner left his native village to join his duties. Petitioner came back on 19.08.2019 after availing leave. In the meantime, on 11.02.2019, a son was born to respondent No.2.

4. On 05.09.2019, respondent No. 2 filed a complaint before the Gram Panchayat alleging harassment at the hands of petitioners No.1 to 4 for dowry. It was also alleged that on 29.08.2019, respondent was beaten by petitioner No.1. On 06.09.2019, a compromise was recorded between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 before Gram Panchayat.

5. On 09.09.2019, respondent No. 2 made a complaint to the police, on the basis of which, FIR No. 37/2019 was recorded on the same day at Women Police Station Bhiuli, District Mandi, H.P., under Sections 498-A, 323 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. It was alleged in the FIR that petitioner No. 1 and his family members had started making demands of dowry from the parents of the complainant. At the time of marriage, a scooty was given to petitioner No. 1. As per complainant, her parents were not in a position to meet the demands of petitioner No.1 and his family members. It was further alleged that on 07.09.2019, petitioner No. 1 had given beatings to complainant. She was medically examined at Civil Hospital, Baldwara. She reported the matter to the police, but no cognizance was taken. Finally, the FIR No. 37/2019 was registered, when complainant approached the Superintendent of Police, Mandi.

6. The case set-up by the petitioners is that the allegations levelled by respondent No.2 in FIR No. 37/2019 are wrong, false and baseless. Respondent No. 2 is stated to have filed an application for maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C for herself as well as minor child. It is alleged that FIR No. 37/2019 is actuated with malice in order to humiliate and harass the petitioners. The purpose of respondent No. 2 was to stop petitioner No.1 from attending his duties. The allegations regarding demand of dowry were stated to be vague. No details and particulars were mentioned regarding such demand. It is further alleged that from the bare reading of the contents of FIR, basic ingredients of Sections 498-A, 323 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC, were not made out. The action of respondent No. 2 has been mentioned as abuse of process of law.

7. Respondent No. 1 filed reply and submitted the factual details which led to the registration of FIR No. 37/2019. It was further submitted that investigation was carried out. As per MLC issued by Civil Hospital Baldwara, simple injuries were found on the person of respondent No. 2. The investigation was stated to be complete and challan was also stated to be pending for scrutiny before Law Officer. As per respondent No. 1, a prima facie case, was made out against petitioners after investigation.

8. Respondent No. 2 also filed her separate reply. She reiterated the allegations of dowry demand as well as harassment and physical assault against the petitioners. It was also submitted that petitioner No.1 wanted to get divorce and to leave the country thereafter. It was further submitted that the police had filed the report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C before the Court of competent jurisdiction, on this score also, dismissal of petition was sought.

9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the status report.

10. The entire thrust of learned counsel for the petitioners was to contend tha