The court emphasized the need for substantial compliance with the requirements of the offence and the reluctance to quash proceedings based on one or two unsatisfied ingredients.

The applicant Rahul Barhat, by means of present petition moved under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeks to quash the charge-sheet dated 29.05.2009 (annexure-5) of Case Crime No. 301 of 2008, State v. Rahul Barhat, under Section 406 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun.

2. A first information report was lodged by the informant (respondent No. 2 herein) against five accused persons including the present applicant on 24.12.2008, at PS Dalanwala, District Dehradun, which was registered as Case Crime No. 301 of 2008, under Sections 498-A, 406, 120-B IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. After the investigation of the case, a charge-sheet under Section 406 IPC and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act was submitted against the applicant. Cognizance on the said charge-sheet was taken and the accused was summoned to face the trial for the offences complained for against him. Aggrieved against the same, present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed.

3. According to the first information report, engagement ceremony of the informants daughter with the applicant was performed on 20.07.2007 at Ajanta Hotel, Rajpur Road, Dehradun. The engagement ceremony was attended by the applicantâ„¢s mother, sister, brother and brothers wife along with many others and relatives. A C.D. was also prepared on the occasion and photographs were also taken. The marriage was to be performed on 13.05.2008 at Junagarh (Gujarat). Informant booked a hotel for the marriage at Junagarh. The applicant is an officer serving in Indian Police Service. He was posted in Andhra Pradesh. Applicant, his mother, brother, brothers wife and sister, all were given gold chains. Applicant was also given golden ring. Golden chains and golden ring cost about 2 lacs. They also demanded Rs. 11 lacs at the time of engagement ceremony in tika, which demand was also fulfilled. Rs. 11 lacs were handed over to his mother and sister. Not only the hotel was booked in the marriage on 13.05.2008, marriage cards were also printed. Arrangements for marriage were being done. About 20 days before the marriage, informant was intimated to give an advance of Rs. 50 lacs and only then the marriage would take place on 13.05.2008. Informant went to meet the applicants mother. She along with her daughter and daughter-in-law reiterated the same demand. Applicant endorsed the same. Informant could not meet their demand. They were not ready to solemnize the marriage of applicant with his daughter. They did not return Rs. 11 lacs +5 lacs+3 lacs = 19 lacs, which expenses were incurred by the informant in the marriage ceremony, as also in purchase of articles. According to the allegations, accused persons committed criminal breach of trust and, therefore, the first information report under Sections 498-A, 406, 120-B of IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was lodged. [Applicant was charge-sheeted under Section 406 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and was, therefore, summoned only for the selfsame offences].

4. The question is- whether foundation of Criminal Offence (s) against the accused-applicant is laid or not? If so, for which offence(s).

5. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the incident occurred on 20.07.2007 and first information report was lodged by respondent No. 2 on 24.12.2008, after a delay of more than one year, which creates serious doubt on his conduct. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the entire family of the applicant was involved. Investigating officer conducted investigation in a casual manner and submitted a charge-sheet relying upon the statements of family members of respondent No. 2. He also contended that on a bare perusal of the charge-sheet and the first information report, no case under Section 406 IPC or section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act were made out, as the marriage did not take place and there was no entrustmen