High Courts should not exercise powers to quash criminal proceedings at the threshold if the complaint prima facie discloses cognizable offences. Courts must avoid conducting mini-trials or evaluating disputed evidence, leaving the determination of truth to the investigative process, especially in cases containing specific factual allegations of harassment and violence.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The petitioners have filed the present petition under Section 528 of The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) for quashing of F.I.R. No. 0003 of 2025, dated 17.01.2025, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 498-A , 504 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), at Women Police Station Chamba, District Chamba, H.P. and consequential proceedings arising out of it.

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the informant Simran Kaur/respondent No.2 was married to the petitioner Arjun Singh on 24.05.2023 as per custom. The informant’s husband and her parents-in-law kept her properly for about one month after her marriage. Thereafter, they started harassing her. They asserted that she had not brought sufficient dowry from her parents. They started insulting, taunting and passing sarcastic remarks to the informant for not bringing sufficient dowry. They demanded ₹50,000/- from the informant’s parents. The informant’s parents transferred ₹9000/- and ₹50,000/- to the bank account of the informant’s husband in October 2023 and December 2023. The accused demanded a motorcycle from the informant and her father, and also a car worth ₹ 35 lakhs. When the informant was unable to fulfil this demand, the accused gave beatings to her on 24.06.2024. The informant sustained injuries, but she was not taken to the hospital. The informant’s father visited her matrimonial home and took her to the hospital for treatment. The informant made a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Chamba, District Chamba, H.P., which was forwarded to the Women Police Station, Chamba, District Chamba. The matter was referred to the District Legal Services Authority, Chamba, but the informant’s husband did not appear, and proceedings for mediation could not proceed further. The informant’s husband threatened to murder and grievously hurt the informant and her parents. This conversation was recorded by the informant on her mobile phone. The informant reported the matter to the police, but no action was taken. The informant made a complaint to the Court of Learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chamba, District Chamba, who forwarded it to the police. The police registered F.I.R. and investigated the matter.

3. The petitioners/accused have filed the present petition for quashing of the FIR, asserting that the F.I.R. is an abuse of the process of the law because all the family members of the informant’s husband have been implicated with no specific allegation and no specific role. Petitioner No.1 is the informant’s father-in-law, who has retired from the Indian Army and is not dependent upon his son. Petitioner No.2 is the informant’s mother-in-law and is aged about 66 years. She has recently undergone surgery. Petitioner No.3 is the informant’s brother-in-law, and he is residing separately. Petitioner No.4 is the sister-in-law of the informant, whose husband had expired on 28.06.2017. She is residing separately with her two children. Petitioner No.5 is a married sister-in-law of the informant, and she is residing at a different place with her family members. Petitioners No. 6 and 7 are residing at a distance of about 25 km from the informant’s matrimonial home with their family members. The informant has falsely asserted that money was transferred to her husband’s account. The demand for Bullet motorcycle and car is general in nature. The allegations in the F.I.R., even if accepted to be correct, do not constitute the