Quashing criminal proceedings at an advanced trial stage is improper; high courts must not conduct mini-trials or re-appreciate evidence under inherent powers. If specific allegations of cruelty and dowry demands exist, determining their veracity is the exclusive domain of the trial court during active proceedings.

By the Court:- Heard the parties.

2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 4 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the prayer to quash the order dated 21.01.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Bokaro in C.P. Case No. 912 of 2017 whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Bokaro has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and the prayer has also been made to quash the order framing charges dated 18.09.2024 in the said case, by which the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Bokaro has framed charges for the offences punishable under Section 4 98A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 , 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioners.

3. The brief fact of the case is that the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioner No.1 is husband of the informant-complainant, the petitioner No.2 & 3 are respectively younger brother and father of the petitioner No.1. The allegation against them is that after solemnization of the marriage of the petitioner No.1 with the informant-complainant, they demanded dowry initially a car and thereafter money from time to time and harassed the informant-complainant in several manners such as frequently locking the informant-complainant in a room and beating her. On the basis of the written report submitted by the informant, police registered Bokaro (Mahila) P.S. Case No. 13 of 2017 and took up investigation of the case and after completion of the investigation, police submitted final report by mentioning therein that the allegations made in the FIR are not true. The complainant-informant filed a protest petition which was registered as Protest-cum-Complaint Petition No. 912 of 2017 and on the basis of the same as well as the statement of the complainant under solemn affirmation and the statement of the inquiry witnesses, the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Bokaro has found prima facie case against the petitioners for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and passed the summoning order and subsequently, framed charges vide order dated 18.09.2024. The undisputed fact remains that so far, two witnesses of the complainant-informant have been examined and they have been discharged after their cross-examination.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Preeti Gupta & Another vs. State of Jharkhand & Another reported in (2010) 7 SCC 667 and submits that therein, in the facts of that case in the complaint, allegation was made that a luxury car was demanded by all the accused persons named in the complaint and the petitioner No.2 assaulted the complainant either at Kanpur or at Mumbai and except the demand of luxury car, no incident of harassment took place at Ranchi. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in para-20 of the said judgment in the case of Preeti Gupta & Another vs. State of Jharkhand & Another (supra) relied upon its own judgment in the case of R.P. Kapur vs. State of P