The High Court may quash an FIR under S.482 CrPC only if the allegations do not constitute an offence; such power is exercised sparingly.

1. This petition has been filed under S.482, CrPC praying for quashing of the First Information Report (Annexure 1).

2. Shortly stated, the petitioner's case is that Promod Kumar, son of the petitioners 3 and 4 was married to the informant Basant Lal's daughter Anita in the month of July, 2000. No dowry was demanded either at the time of marriage or thereafter. Promod Kumar and Anita could not carry harmonious relationship between the two. Their nuptial knot started slacking due to the unceremonious interference of Anita's Jija (sister's husband), namely Pyare Lal, who started visiting Anita and he carried on with his visits despite restrictions imposed by Promod Kumar. At times, Pyare Lal misbehaved with the petitioners. Promod Kumar's complaint lodged with the police regarding misbehaviour of Pyare Lal did not move the police to take any action. Pyare Lal became so devil that he came to the petitioner's house on June 28, 2002 and carried away forcibly Anita extending threats to the petitioners and their other family members of dire consequences. The petitioner No. 3 was also abused and beaten by Pyare Lal. Her injuries were examined in the Government Hospital. In order to neutralize the petitioner's complaint, Anita's father Basant Lal lodged a false report (under challenge) reciting therein that the petitioners demanded from his daughter dowry comprising Hero Honda motorcycle and a refrigerator and when the informant's son and son - in - law (Pyare Lal) requested for Anita being sent with them, the petitioners allegedly indulged in violence by beating Anita and also misbehaved with Pyare Lal and the informant's son. This occurrence was said to have taken place at 10.30 a.m. on 28-6-2002. As the entire story of alleged demand of dowry and causing injuries to Anita and others is concocted, the petitioners have filed this petition under S.482, CrPC .

3. The crucial question is as to whether a petition under S.482, CrPC for quashing of a First Information Report is maintainable?

4. Supporting his contention that a petition under S.482, CrPC is enter - tainable by the High Court, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon a Supreme Court decision, M/s. Pepsi, Food Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate 999 Lucknow Cri. Reports 438 : 1997 All LJ 2406 : 1997 AIR SCW 4084. Hon'ble Supreme Court observed in this decision that nomenclature under which a petition is filed is not quite relevant and that does not debar the Court from exercising its jurisdiction which otherwise it possesses unless there is special procedure prescribed and such procedure is mandatory. If in a case, the Court finds that the appellants could not invoke its jurisdiction under Art.226, the Court can certainly treat the petition under Art.227 of the Constitution or S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure but it cannot be lost sight of that the provisions exist in the code of revision and appeal but some time for immediate relief, S.482 of the Code or Art.227 may have to be resorted to for correcting grave errors but the condition for filing such petition is that the petitioner must establish that even on the face of the First Information Report or the complaint, no case is made out. While dealing with issue, the Hon'ble Court referred to an earlier decision in, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal , 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : AIR 1992 SC 604 wherein some guidelines were laid to exercise extraordinary power under Art.226 of the Constitution or the inherent powers under S.482, CrPC These guidelines may be enumerated as follows :
"(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are