Court reinforced that FIRs must not be quashed unless clearly frivolous, emphasizing the necessity for investigations to proceed undisturbed.

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.17 of 2023, pending on the file of the first respondent police, registered for the offence under Sections 406, 323 of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. On the complaint lodged by the second respondent, the first respondent registered the FIR in Crime No.17 of 2023, on the allegations that second respondent is the wife of the petitioner and their marriage was love cum inter-caste marriage. After their marriage, the second respondent left to USA for her job and the petitioner along with his parents had demanded dowry and also misappropriated the marriage seethana jewels. It is also alleged that the petitioner picked up quarrel and hit the second respondent and caused simple injury. Further the petitioner forced the second respondent to work in spite of her illness and working in USA had caused mental torture. Hence the complaint.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner and the second respondent got married on 28.11.2018 and it was a love marriage. After their marriage, they gave birth to two children and due to misunderstanding, the second respondent left the matrimonial home. Therefore, the petitioner issued legal notice. Immediately after receipt of the same, the second respondent lodged the present complaint. The first respondent, without even conducting any enquiry registered the FIR under the Dowry Prohibition Act. The Dowry Prohibition Act has preliminary enquiry before registration of FIR. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon'bel Supreme Court of India made in SLP(Cri) No.16239 of 2024 dated 10.12.2024 in the case of Dara Lakshmi Narayana & ors Vs. State of Telangana

4. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submitted that the petitioner had demanded a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- as dowry and also received the same. Further, the second respondent's huge sovereigns of jewels were also under the custody of the petitioner. When the second respondent entered into her matrimonial house, she was driven out from the house and as such she sustained injury. Immediately she was taken to hospital for treatment. Now the petitioner is living with another woman. Even before their marriage, he lived with another woman. He also produced photographs before this Court.

5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the first respondent police would submit that the investigation is almost completed and the respondent police is yet to file the final report.

6. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed on record.

7. It is seen from the First Information Report that there are specific allegations as against the petitioner to attract the offence, which has to be investigated in depth. Further the FIR is not an encyclopedia and it need not contain all facts and it cannot be quashed in the threshold. This Court finds that the FIR discloses prima facie commission of cognizable offence and as such this Court cannot interfere with the investigation. The investigating machinery has to step in to investigate, grab and unearth the crime in accordance with the procedures prescribed in the Code.

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in the judgment reported in 2019 (14) SCC 350 in the case of Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. The State of Maharashtra & ors., (Crl.A.No.255 of 2019 dated 12.02.2019 ) held that the learned Magistrate while taking cognizance and summoning, is required