The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for proper investigation and the cautious exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC. The Court emphasized that interference with the investigation should only occur in exceptional cases where the prosecution is malicious and vexatious.

JUDGMENT

1. This application under Section 482 of CrPC has been filed for quashment of the charge-sheet arising out of Crime No.954/2017 registered at Police Station Dabra Distt. Gwalior for offence under Section 498-A, 323, 294, 506, 377, 34 of IPC and its subsequent proceedings in S.T. No.96/2019 pending before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Dabra Distt. Gwalior for offence under Section 498-A and 377 of IPC.

2. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that on the complaint made by the respondent No. 2, he is facing charges under Section 498-A and 377 of IPC. Initially, respondent No. 2 had not made any allegation of unnatural sex, but after due deliberation, the allegations were made in her statement recorded under Section 164 of CrPC. The presence of sperms in the slide is unrealistic because according to the respondent No. 2 herself, she is residing separately from the applicant. Furthermore, as per the medical evidence, the life of sperms is limited and, therefore, the presence of sperms as per the FSL report is false. It is further submitted that the FIR was lodged against other co-accused persons also and this Court by order dated 13.03.2019 passed in M.Cr.C. No.25326/2018 has quashed the proceedings against the siblings of the applicant.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant.

4. So far as the relatives of the applicant namely Smt. Somly Gupta and Sandeep Gupta are concerned, there were no allegation of committing unnatural sex. Furthermore, the proceedings were quashed not on the ground that the allegations made against them are false, but the proceedings have been quashed on the ground that near and dear relative of husband of the complainant cannot be prosecuted unless and until specific allegations are made against them. In absence of any specific allegation, the proceedings have been quashed.

5. So far as the contention of the applicant for quashment of the proceedings is concerned, it is clearly based on the premise that the allegations are false. This Court while exercising the power under Section 482 of CrPC cannot adjudicate the correctness of the allegations and can quash the proceedings only if the uncontroverted allegations do not make out offence.

6. Whether the allegations of unnatural sex was belatedly made or not and if so then what would be its effect, is yet to be decided by the Trial Court. The proceedings cannot be quashed merely on the ground that delayed statements have been made. It is for the Trial Court to consider the effect of delay in making any particular allegation.

The Supreme Court in the case of Munshiram v. State of Rajasthan, reported in (2018) 5 SCC 678 has held as under :

10. Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perusing the material available on record we are of the opinion that the High Court has prematurely quashed the FIR without proper investigation being conducted by the police. Further, it is no more res integra that Section 482 CrPC has to be utilised cautiously while quashing the FIR. This Court in a catena of cases has quashed FIR only after it comes to a conclusion that continuing investigation in such cases would only amount to abuse of the process

The Supreme Court in the case of Teeja Devi v. State of Rajasthan reported in (2014) 15 SCC 221 has held as under :

5. It has been rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that ordinarily power under Section 482 CrPC should not be used to quash an FIR because that amounts to interfering with the statutory power of the police to investigate a cognizable offence in accordance with the provisions of CrPC. As per law settled by a catena of judgments, if the allegations made in the FIR prima facie disclose a cognizable offence, interference with the investigation is not proper and it can be done only in the rarest of rare cases where the court is satisfied that the prosecution is malicious and vexatious.

The Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa v. Ujjal Kumar Burdhan, re