- (1.) I. M. Quddusi, J. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE present petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. has been died challenging the prosecution of the applicants in Com plainant Case No. 6 of l995,jax\inder Kaur v. Harbhajan Singh and another under Sec tion 405/406, I. P. C. Police Station Kemri district Rampur on which the applicants have been summoned by the learned Magistrate vide order dated 25-1-1995. THE applicants preferred a revision against the summoning order as Criminal Revision No. 19 of 1995 before the Sessions Judge, Ram pur which was dismissed on 26-4-95 holding that the revision was not maintainable as the order was an interlocutor)' one and the accused should have appeared before the Magistrate and contended that the process should not have been issued as there was no sufficient ground to proceed in the matter and that the complaint should be dismissed. THE applicants thereafter filed objections and the learned Magistrate passed an order dated 17 10-95 rejecting the objection and confirming the earlier order dated 25-1-95. The brief facts as narrated in the affidavit filed in support of the application are that the marriage between applicant No. 1 and opposite party No. 2 took place on 18-2-1993. On 23-9-1994 opposite party No. 2 lodged a first information report against five accused persons and complaint case against two more accused persons, namely, Shrimati Shinder Kaur, sister of the hus band and Milkiyat Singh, her husband under Section 3/4 of Dowery Prohibition Act and Section 49s-A, I. P. C. and was registered as Case Crime No. 332 of 1994 under the aforesaid Sections. The learned Magistrate after perusing the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202, Cr. P. C. came to the conclusion that at that stage it cannot be said that no case under Section 405/406, I. P. C. has been made out against the applicants. This order has been passed by the learned Magistrate after filing objec tion by the applicants which is a final order against which a Criminal Revision lies and the petition under Seciion 482, Cr. P. C. is not maintainable. In she matter of Dipti v. Akhil Rai, 1995 (5) SCC 751, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the inherent power cannot be utilised for exercising powers expressly barred by the Code. In the matter of State of Tamil Nadu v. Thirukkural Perumal, 1995 (2) SCC 449, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the High Court was not justified in evaluating the genuineness and reliability of the allega tions made in the F. I. R. and the complaint on the basis of evidence collected during investigation. In the matter of Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar and another reported in (CRIMES-III-1985 (1) Page 614) it has been held that the High Court should very sparingly exercise its discretion under Sec tion 482, Cr. P. C. to quash a F. I. R. or a complaint. The High Court should proceed for the purpose of exercising its power under Section 482 Cr. P. C. to quash a F. I. R. or a complaint, entirely on the basis of the allegations made in the complaint or the documents accompanying the same per se. It has no jurisdiction to examine the correct ness or otherwise of the allegations. In the present case the allegations made in the complaint were clear, specific and unam biguous and prima facie constitute an of fence under Section 406, I. P. C. Therefore, the complainant cannot he denied the right to prove her case at the trial by pre- empting it at the very behest by the orders passed by the High Court. It is, of course, open to the accused at the trial to take whatever defen ces that were open to him but that stage has not yet come and, therefore, the High Court was totally ill-advised to speculate on the merits of the case at that stage and quash the proceedings. In the instant matter also, on the basis of the allegations made in the com plaint as well as the statement recorded under Sections 200 and 202, Cr. P. C. it can not be said that no prima facie case is made out to prosecute the applicants under Sec tion 405/406, I. P. C. However, at this stage it would not be proper to discuss the specific allegations made in the complaint as well as in the statements recorded by the learned Magistrate as that would more likely prejudice the case of the parties.
(3.) IN view of the above observations the petition lacks merits and is hereby dis missed. However, it is made clear that none of the observations made above shall be taken into consideration by the learned court below while deciding the case on merits. Petition dismissed. .;