1. Heard on the question of admission.

2. This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the F.I.R. and investigation in crime no. 293/2017 registered at Police Station Bhind Dehat, Distt. Bhind, for offence under Sections 498-A, 323, 34 of I.P.C.

3. The necessary facts for the disposal of the present application in short are that the complainant/respondent no.2 is the widow of Late Indrajeet Singh Jatav. Respondent no.2 lodged a report that she was married to late Indrajeet Singh Jatav on 1-6-2013, as per Hindu Rites and Rituals. Her husband expired in a Rail Accident on 30-10-2016. Thereafter, the applicant and the parents-in-law of respondent no.2 started harassing her physically and mentally, and ultimately, She has been turned out of her matrimonial house along with her children on 29-5-2017 and prior to that she was beaten by the applicant and her parents-in-law. On this complaint, the police has registered the offence under Sections 498-A, 323, 34 of I.P.C.

4. Challenging the F.I.R., it is submitted by the Counsel for the applicant, that the applicant is not the real brother-in-law of respondent no.2, but he is the cousin brother-in-law of respondent no.2. The applicant is residing separately at a distance of 30 Kms from the matrimonial house of the respondent no.2. The applicant is not on visiting terms with the parents-in-law of respondent no.2. It is further submitted that since, the applicant is running M.P. Online Franchisee, and since, he is financially well, therefore, he has been falsely implicated. It is further submitted that day by day, a tendency is increasing in the society to falsely implicate the near and dear relatives of the husband.

5. Per contra, it is submitted by the Counsel for the State that there are specific allegations against the applicant, and when the F.I.R. discloses the commission of cognizable offence, then in the light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari Vs. State of U.P. reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1, the police is under obligation to register the F.I.R. The investigation is still going on.

6. It is further submitted by the Counsel for the complainant, that considering the allegations made against the applicant, his application for grant of anticipatory bail has also been rejected and in order to avoid his arrest, this present application has been filed with ulterior motive.

7. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

8. In the present application, the basic contention of the applicant is that he is residing separately at a distance of 30 Kms. and is not on a visiting terms with the parents-in-law of respondent no.2 and has been falsely implicated because he is running a M.P. Online Franchisee and is financially well.

9. The Supreme Court in the case of Satvinder Kaur Vs. State (Govt. Of NCT of Delhi) reported in (1999) 8 SCC 728, has held as under :

“14. Further, the legal position is well settled that if an offence is disclosed the court will not normally interfere with an investigation into the case and will permit investigation into the offence alleged to be completed. If the FIR, prima facie, discloses the commission of an offence, the court does not normally stop the investigation, for, to do so would be to trench upon the lawful power of the police to investigate into cognizable offences. It is also settled by a long course of decisions of this Court that for the purpose of exercising its power under Section 482 CrPC to quash an FIR or a complaint, the High Court would have to proceed entirely on the basis of the allegations made in the complaint or the documents accompanying the same per se; it has no jurisdiction to examine the correctness or otherwise of the allegations.

15. Hence, in the present case, the High Court committed a grave error in accepting the contention of the respondent that the investigating officer had no jurisdiction to investigate the matters on the alleged ground that no part of the offence was