The need for evidence and trial to establish the factual aspects of the case and caution against quashing criminal proceedings based on incomplete facts.

JUDGMENT

Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava, J. - Petitioner is calling in question the impugned FIR, bearing Crime No.51/2021 registered at Manila Police Station Gwalior by which offence has been registered against the petitioner under Sections 498A, 506, 323, 34 of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. Facts leading to filing of present petition, in short, are that respondent No.2 submitted a written report before Mahila Police Station Gwalior on 04/02/2021 to the effect that she got married with petitioner on 13/04/2012 as per the Hindu rites and rituals. It is alleged therein that petitioner and her other in-laws, who are persistently making demand for dowry and ill-treating her in regard to amount of Rs.2 lac due to which, present complaint has been lodged and on the basis of said complaint, aforesaid offence has been registered against petitioner and her other in-laws. Being aggrieved the impugned FIR, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

4. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner along with his brother and father had never harassed the complainant and there is no specific allegation against petitioner in regard to demand of dowry. It is further contended that there is an illicit relationship of complainant with another person and the complainant does not want to live with her husband. Earlier, a Habeas Corpus petition was filed, seeking a divorce from the complainant as both complainant and her husband are living separately since 06/01/2019 and there is no marital relationship between the complainant and her husband and complainant earlier has not only stated before the Court but also before concerning Superintendent of Police by filing an application that; she doe not want to live with her husband and wants to live with one Sanjay Parmar. It is further contended that neither there is direct or indirect involvement of petitioner in the said crime in any manner. Counsel for the petitioner contended that complainant has mala fidely lodged aforesaid false and fabricated FIR and the same deserves to be quashed and in support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana & Others, vs. Ch. Bhajanlal & Others, reported in 1990 SCR Supl.(3) 259.

5. On the other hand, counsel for the State as well as complainant supported the impugned FIR and submitted that the FIR discloses that the matter has to be investigated by the police authority and at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against petitioner. The petitioner, who is the husband of the deceased, is of not causing any harassment or cruelty with the complainant is false. From the contents of impugned FIR, it is clear that there is specific allegation of demand of dowry against the husband and complainant was mentally as well as physically harassed by her husband and her other in-laws and this fact has also been narrated by complainant in her Police Case Diary statement. Under these circumstances, the entire matter is only at a premature stage and the investigation has not proceeded with except some preliminary efforts taken from the date of registration of case. The evidence has to be gathered after a thorough investigation and placed before the Court on the basis of which alone the Court can come to a conclusion one way or the other on the plea of mala fides. If the allegations are bereft of truth and made maliciously, the investigation will say so. At this stage, even if there are only allegations but no evidence, the Court cannot anticipate the result of the investigation and render a finding on the question of mala fides on the materials at present available. Therefore, it cannot be said that complaint should be thrown overboard on the mere unsubstantiated plea of mala fides. No case is made out for quashment of the impugned FIR. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of present petition.

6. Heard rival contentions of both the parties and perused the recor