The High Court's power to quash an FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is extraordinary and cannot be used to conduct a mini-trial; if the FIR prima facie discloses a cognizable offence, disputed questions of fact must be decided during the trial.

KIRTI SINGH , J. (ORAL)

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing of FIR No. 65 dated 15.7.2025, under Sections 85 , 115, 316(2) and 351(2) of BNS, 2023, registered at Women Police Station, NIT Faridabad (Annexure P-1) and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom including the charge sheet/challan (Annexure P-2).

2. Succinct factual narrative relevant for the disposal of the instant petition is that complainant-respondent No. 2 made a complaint to the police, alleging therein that her marriage was solemnized with the petitioner on 10.5.2023 as per Hindu rites and rituals. Out of the said wedlock a male child was born on 19.2.2024. At the time of marriage, her parents had given dowry, including household articles, to the petitioner and his family members. However, they were not happy with the said dowry articles, and after marriage they started harassing, taunting, and beating the complainant-respondent and started demanded dowry from her. It is further alleged that in the month of October, 2024 the petitioner burnt her hand and tried to kill her by strangulation at the instance of other accused persons. Thereafter on 20.11.2024, the complainant was beaten and thrown out of the house along with her minor son. The accused persons also refused to return the istri dhan to her. On the basis of the said complaint, the present FIR was registered against the petitioner and other co-accused.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case by the complainant-respondent No. 2 on account of a matrimonial dispute. It is the second marriage of both the parties. It is submitted that respondent No. 2 has left her matrimonial home along with the minor son without any sufficient cause. Respondent No. 2 has not made any specific allegation of demand of dowry or entrustment of dowry articles against the petitioner, and the allegations levelled against the petitioner with regard to harassment and beatings are vague, omnibus and unsubstantiated by any evidence. It is further submitted the all the alleged incidents are stated to have taken place in New Delhi, and no offence has been stated to have been committed within the jurisdiction of the learned trial Court at Faridabad. Thus, it is prayed that the instant petition be allowed and the present FIR be quashed.

4. Per contra, the learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the present petition. Reply by way of affidavit of Assistant Commissioner of Police, Badkhal, Faridabad has been filed by the State, which is taken on record.

5. Learned State counsel submits that the petitioner has been specifically named in the present FIR, and specific allegations have been levelled against him, that he harassed the complainant-respondent No. 2 for demand of dowry, including the demand for an i-phone and Rs. 5.00 lacs; beat her, and also threatened to kill her. It is submitted that the present petition is liable to be dismissed as all the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner herein are disputed question of facts, which can be determined only after the evidence is produced before the learned trial Court.

6. Heard learned counsel on either side and perused the judicial record with their able assistance.

7. It is settled law that the Courts must not invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction to quash FIRs as a matter of routine. It is only in exceptional circumstances, where not even a prima facie case can be established against the accused person, or that