JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J.

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the learned single Judge of the Madras High Court rejecting the petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the `Code').

2. Background facts in short are as follows:

Sukanya (hereinafter referred to as `the complainant') was married with Sunder Babu-appellant No. 1. Appellant No. 2-Mr. Venugopal and Mrs. Ramathilagam appellant No. 3 are the parents of Sunder Babu. A.4-Rajinishree is his sister and Andalammal is his maternal grandmother. The marriage took place on 25/11/1998. The appellant No. 1 left for USA on 1/7/1999. The complaint was filed on 6/2/2000 alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the `IPC') and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (in short `D.P. Act').

3. The complaint was treated as First Information Report and investigation was undertaken. On completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed on 8/6/2000. A divorce petition was filed by the complainant which appears to have been granted ex parte on 12/7/2001. According to the appellants, complainant-Sukanya has remarried on 24/8/2002. It was a stand of the appellant that the complaint filed was nothing but an abuse of the process of law. The allegations were unfounded. There was no basis for making the allegations. The appellant No. 1 had left for USA after about six months of the marriage. Long thereafter on 6/2/2000, the complaint was filed. No explanation for the delayed lodging of the complaint was offered. In essence, it was submitted that the continuance of the proceedings will be an abuse of the process of law. The prosecuting agency before the High Court contested the petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. taking the stand that a bare perusal of the complaint discloses commission of alleged offences and therefore it is not a case which needed to be allowed. The High Court accepted the stand of the respondent-State and dismissed the application.

4. In support of the appeal learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the factual scenario indicated above and even a cursory glance of the complaint petition shows that the same was nothing but an attempt to falsely implicate the accused persons. Learned Counsel for the respondent State supported the judgment.

5. Though the scope for interference while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is limited, but it can be made in cases as spelt out in the case of Bhajan Lal. The illustrative examples laid down therein are as follows:

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the