Paramjeet Singh, J.

1. Instant petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of FIR No. 07 dated 09.01.2015, registered at Police Station Urban Estate, Rohtak, under Sections 498-A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Brief facts of the case are to the effect that respondent No. 2 was married with petitioner No. 1 as per Hindu rites and customs. Respondent No. 2 got registered the aforesaid FIR alleging that the petitioners harassed her with demand of dowry amounting to cruelty. In the FIR, it is alleged that the petitioners demanded Fortuner Car and Rs. 10 lacs as dowry.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that there are no specific allegations against the petitioners. The reading of FIR makes it clear that no offence is made out against the petitioners. In support of his contentions, learned counsel relied upon judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Appeal (Crl.) No. 1392 of 2007, titled 'Inder Mohan Goswami & Another v. State of Uttranchal & Others', decided on 09.10.2007, State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors. AIR 1992 SC 604, judgment of this Court in CRM-M-8480 of 2010, titled 'Harjit Singh and another v. The State of Punjab and another', decided on 07.09.2012, Krishan Lal And Ors. v. State of Haryana And Anr. II(1990) DMC 344 and judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Crl. M.C. No. 799 of 2009, titled 'Sudhir Kapur and Ors. v. State & Anr.', decided on 10.08.2010.

5. I have considered the rival contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner.

6. In Crl. Appeal No. 456 of 2015, titled 'Taramani Parakh v. State of M.P. & Ors., decided on 16.03.2015, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:

"11. Law relating to quashing is well settled. If the allegations are absurd or do not make out any case or if it can be held that there is abuse of process of law, the proceedings can be quashed but if there is a triable case the Court does not go into reliability or otherwise of the version or the counter version. In matrimonial cases, the Courts have to be cautious when omnibus allegations are made particularly against relatives who are not generally concerned with the affairs of the couple. We may refer to the decisions of this Court dealing with the issue. Referring to earlier decisions, in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander and Anr. (2012) 8 SCC 460, it was observed:

"27.1. Though there are no limits of the powers of the Court under Section 482 of the Code but the more the power, the more due care and caution is to be exercised in invoking these powers. The power of quashing criminal proceedings, particularly, the charge framed in terms of Section 228 of the Code should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases.

27.2. The Court should apply the test as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made from the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith prima facie establish the offence or not. If the allegations are so patently absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person can ever reach such a conclusion and where the basic ingredients of a criminal offence are not satisfied then the Court may interfere.

27.3. The High Court should not unduly interfere. No meticulous examination of the evidence is needed for considering whether the case would end in conviction or not at the stage of framing of charge or quashing of charge.

27.4. Where the exercise of such power is absolutely essential to prevent patent miscarriage of justice and for correcting some grave error that might be committed by the subordinate courts even in such cases, the High Court should be loath to interfere, at the threshold, to throttle the prosecution in exercise of its inherent powers.

27.5. Where there is an express legal bar enacted in any of the provisions of the Code or any specific law in force to the very initiation or institution and co

Click Here to Read the rest of this document