[1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO. 152/2006 HEMANT SADHWANI & ORS. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. Date: 13.02.2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RATHORE Mr. Rajeev Surana for the petitioner. Mr. Arun Sharma, Public Prosecutor for the State. **** By way of this criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners have challenged the FIR No. 5/2006 dated 08.01.2006 registered at Mahila Police Station, District Bharatpur for the offences under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC and prayed for quashing the same. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the FIR in question deserves to be quashed and set aside as this FIR has been lodged after the divorce decree by way of mutual consent. It is also contended that one complaint has also been filed before the A.C.M.M. (First), Kanpur City in the year 2005 under Section 498-A, 420 IPC and Section 3, 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and shown the documents to this Court in this regard. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that there are two different FIRs' and as per [2] the petitioners, the FIR in question has been lodged after the divorce decree and secondly the FIR has been challenged on the ground that another complaint has been filed in the Court of Kanpur City. This requires thorough investigation and it is for the investigating agency to consider all these aspects. Even otherwise also, Hon'ble the 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 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 [3] 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 the instant misc. petition. No case for quashing the FIR No. 5/2006 registered at Mahila Police Station, District Bharatpur 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 20.01.2006 granted by this Court is rejected. The stay application also stands dismissed. (K.S. RATHORE)J. /KKC/