[1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO. 1442/2005 SHIV LAL & ORS. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. Date: 18.02.2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RATHORE Mr. Neeraj Kumar for the petitioners. Mr. Arun Sharma, Public Prosecutor for the State. **** The instant criminal misc. petition has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the FIR No. 159/2005 registered at Police Station Navalgarh, District Jhunjhunu for the offences under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC. The main contention of the petitioners for quashment of FIR in question is that the complainant- respondent No.2 Smt. Khusboo @ Manoj, wife of the petitioner after marriage lived with the petitioner hardly for 10-15 days and the question of any harassment does not arise. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the complainant-respondent willingly left her matrimonial house and started living with her parents. The petitioner moved an application under [2] Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights which is still pending. The petitioner also submits that father of the complainant-respondent applied for issuing search warrant and thus, the complainant before filing the private complaint, has concealed the material fact in the complaint itself. Therefore, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the conduct of the complainant-respondent/wife, the FIR in question deserves to be quashed and set aside. It is also submitted by the petitioner that after investigation challan has been filed against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and carefully gone through the material available on record as well as the contents of FIR. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar and another Vs. Shri P.P. Sharma and another, AIR 1991 SC 1260, has held that the appreciation of evidence is the function of the criminal Courts. The High Court, under the circumstances, could not have assumed jurisdiction and put an end to the process of investigation and trial [3] provided under the law and mere allegations of mala fide against informant and investigating officer cannot be basis for quashing proceedings. Similar view has been expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others Vs. B.R. Bajaj and others, AIR 1994 SC 1256, wherein it has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that FIR containing some important allegations which make out a cognizable offence at that stage and registration of FIR was only beginning of investigation and quashing of FIR by the High Court is not proper- Treating whole matter as though it was an appeal against the order of conviction was not permissible in exercising inherent power under Section 482 particularly at stage of FIR when same discloses commission of cognizable offence which had still to be investigated thoroughly by police. Therefore, in view of the ratio decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of State of Bihar and another Vs. Shri P.P. Sharma and another (supra) and Union of India and others Vs. B.R. Bajaj and others (supra) as also in the case of State of Haryana And Others Vs. Bhajan Lal And Others, 1992 Supp(1) SCC 335, this Court do not find any merit in [4] the instant misc. petition. No case for quashing the FIR No. 159/2005 registered at Police Station Navalgarh, District Jhunjhunu for the offences under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC, is made out. Consequently, the misc. petition fails being devoid of merit and the same is hereby dismissed. The interim order dated 21.11.2005 granted by this Court stands rejected. The stay application as well as second stay application also stand dismissed. (K.S. RATHORE)J. /KKC/