The High Court has the power to quash an FIR and further proceedings under Section 482 CrPC, but this power should not be exercised after the filing of the charge-sheet, except in rare cases where forensic exigencies and formidable compulsions justify such a course.

K.S.Kumaran, J.

1. Petitioners (1) Anil Kumar son of Banwari Lal and (2) Kaushalya Devi, widow of Jai Kishan, have approached this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the F.I.R. No. 110 dated 11.8.1996 under Sections 406, 498A and 34 I.P.C., registered by Police Station City, Abohar. The said F.I.R. was registered on the basis of the complaint given by the wife against her husband, the grandmother of the husband (the 2nd petitioner herein), certain other relations of her husband, and Anil Kumar (the Ist petitioner herein, who is only a friend of her husband).

2. The material allegations in the F.I.R. are as follows :-

The marriage between the complainant/wife and Amit Kumar was performed on 26.2.1994. After saptpadi and before departure of the doli, father of the complainant and other relatives gave sufficient amount of golden ornaments, furniture, clothes, beds, coolers, pots, T.V. and other articles. Rupees two lacs were given in cash for purchase of Maruti Car, which the accused have purchased after marriage. The articles were packed in different boxes and entrusted to the accused (the complainant has stated in detail the articles entrusted to the various accused). Bed sheets for summer and winter were handed over to Kaushalya Devi wife of Jai Kishan. The various articles were given to different persons as per the direction of Subhash Chander and Smt. Pushpa Rani (father-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant).

3 The accused had taken all the articles at the time of departure of the doli. These articles were given for the use of the petitioner as her Stri Dhan. These articles were not handed over to the complainant. Whenever the complainant demanded new clothes and ornaments, the accused replied that these were worn at the time of marriage and did not give the same to the complainant. Immediately after the marriage, accused 1 to 7 started teasing the complainant on the ground that she had brought less dowry. All the accused started demanding rupees two lacs for opening new clinic. Anil Kumar son of Banwari Lal who is a close friend of Amit Kumar (husband), whose house is at a short distance from the house of Amit Kumar, exhorted the accused, and all the accused 1 to 8 started demanding the amount. All the accused teased and tortured and kept her hungry for many times. In February, 1995, the complainant was sent away from the house after beating. The accused refused to hand over the articles given in the marriage. The T.V. has been given to Kaushalya Devi (accused No. 7) which she is using. The accused were demanding more dowry. They are destroying the articles given in marriage and are putting off the return of the articles.

4. The petitioners have alleged in this petition that as per the allegation in the complaint, bed-sheets were given to the second petitioner (Kaushalya Devi) while nothing was handed over to the first petitioner. The petitioners have also urged that it has not been mentioned in the complaint that these articles were given as consideration for the marriage. The petitioners have further alleged that the first petitioner is only a friend and he will not fall within the ambit of Section 498-A of I.P.C. and there is no allegation that he was entrusted with any of the dowry articles. According to the petitioners, the second petitioner Kaushalya Devi is the grandmother of the complainants husband, who is not only more than 90 years, but is also blind who can walk only with support, and that her name has been dragged just to harass her.

5. Even though opportunity was given, no reply has been filed by the respondents and I have heard the counsel for the petitioners as well as the counsel for the State.

6. I will first deal with the case of the first petitioner - Anil Kumar son of Banwari Lal. Even in the F.I.R., it has been stated that he is a close friend of Amit Kumar, the husband of the complainant. The contention of the petitioners is that the first petitioner could not be punished u/S