The present petition is filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C for quashment of FIR No.148/2022 registered at police station Vijay Nagar, Indore under section 420 , 406 , 498-A of IPC and 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and criminal proceedings instituted by the respondent no.2 against the petitioner vide RCT No.1809/2023 pending before the JMFC, Indore.

2. In the year 2017, the marriage was performed between the petitioner and respondent no.2 as per Indian customs and traditions in New Delhi, India. After the solemnization of marriage on 25.11.2017, the complainant and the petitioner stayed at the petitioners' father residence in Pant Nagar, Uttarakhand for a period of 1 week. On 07.12.2017 the petitioner and the complainant travelled to United States of America. It is submitted that there was a mutual agreement between the parties that the Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOURABH YADAV Signing time: 24-01-2025 17:43:29 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:1774 2 MCRC-56367-2023 complainant will be staying with petitioner in USA after the marriage.

3. On 03.03.2022, the complainant had sent a legal notice to the petitioner seeking divorce by mutual consent and asking for Rs.1 crores alimony. The petitioner filed a petition under section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Saket New Delhi. The complainant has also filed application under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights with the petitioner before the District Court, Indore. Thereafter, she lodged report against the petitioner and his father as FIR No.148/2022 at Police Station Vijay Nagar, Indore for commission of offence 420, 406, 498-A of IPC and 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act .

4. It is argued that bare reading of the FIR shows that the ingredients of offence under section 406 , 420 , 498-A of IPC and section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act do not exist and therefore, FIR is liable to be quashed. It is also argued that the marriage had taken place in November, 2017 and the FIR was lodged on 02.02.2022. In the FIR, the correct facts were not mentioned and they misrepresented the facts. It is submitted that the said FIR was lodged after filing of the divorce petition by the petitioner. Further he submits that the allegation of not paying the amount of 30,000/- US Dollars to the aunt of the complainant is false as the said amount was paid to the account of the aunt of the complainant. The petitioner submitted that the FIR and the criminal case is nothing but is a result of abuse of process of law. Hence, the same is liable to be quashed.

5. It is further submitted that the allegations are prominently of civil Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOURABH YADAV Signing time: 24-01-2025 17:43:29 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:1774 3 MCRC-56367-2023 nature which have been given colour of a criminal case on the said ground also the FIR is liable to be quashed.

6. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the co-ordinate bench at Jabalpur in the case of Ganpat Meena and Ors Vs. State of MP and Anr passed in M.Cr.C No.44242/2023 decided on 14.11.2024. He also placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Kailashben Mahendrabhai Patel Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr passed in Criminal Appeal No.4003/2024.

7. Learned counsel for the state and respondent no.2 opposed the prayer and vehemently argued that the same FIR was challenged by the father of the applicant Sunil Rastogi in M.Cr.C No.45474/2022 and this Court examined the facts of the case and also the allegation contained in FIR in para no.27 of the judgment and also made observation not only against the father of the applicant but also against the applicant that prima facie allegation are available for constituting the offence. The said order has not been challenged. The charge sheet has already been filed and the court has rejected his application for discharge. The applicant has chosen not to challenge the aforesaid orders.

8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in the petition and all the submissions made by the applicant cannot be considered in the light of the judgment passed by this court in the case of his father Sunil Rastogi in M.Cr.C No.45474/2022. In para no.27, this Court has considered the contents and material available in the record.

9. Para no.27 of the said judgment is reproduced as under :-

10. The applicant cited the judgments and the case of Ganpat (supra) by co-ordinate bench. So far the legal proposition is concerned, it is no res- integra that the power under section 482 of Cr.P.C for quashment of FIR or criminal proceedings has to be exercised rarely and sparingly only in exceptional circumstances. This Court is oblivious that if the FIR prima facie does not disclose any ingredients of the offence the alleged the FIR can be quashed.

11. The applicant relied on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Kailashben (supra) in which the Apex Court has considered the Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOURABH YADAV Signing time: 24-01-2025 17:43:29 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:1774 5 MCRC-56367-2023 earlier judgments relating to the scope of interference in a petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C for quashment of FIR and the criminal proceedings. It is held that there is no provision against quashing of the criminal proceedings even after the charge sheet has been filed.

12. After holding the aforesaid judgments, each case has been examined on facts of its case and then only the court has exercised its inherent powers under section 482 of Cr.P.C to quash the FIR or criminal proceedings. This court while dismissing the petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C filed by the father of the applicant has made a survey of the judgments in respect of scope of interference in a petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C.

13. The Supreme Court in the case of Munshiram v. State of Rajasthan , reported in (2018) 5 SCC 678 has held as under :

This Court in a catena of cases has quashed FIR only after it comes to a conclusion that continuing investigation in such cases would only amount to abuse of the process........

14. The Supreme Court in the case of Teeja Devi v. State of Rajasthan reported in (2014) 15 SCC 221 has held as under :

15. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa v. Ujjal Kumar Burdhan , reported in (2012) 4 SCC 547 has held as under:

Justice requires that a person who commits an offence has to be brought to book and must be punished for the same. If the court interferes with the proper investigation in a case where an offence has been disclosed, the offence will go unpunished to the serious detriment of the welfare of the society and the cause of the justice suffers. It is on the basis of this principle that the court normally does not interfere with the investigation of a case where an offence has been disclosed. ...

66. Whether an offence has been disclosed or not must necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each particular case. ... If on a consideration of the relevant materials, the court is satisfied that an offence is disclosed, the court will normally not interfere with the investigation into the offence and will generally allow the investigation into the offence to be completed for collecting materials for proving the offence." (emphasis supplied)

10. On a similar issue under consideration, in Jeffrey J. Diermeier v. State of W.B. , while explaining the scope and ambit of the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code, one of us (D.K. Jain, J.) speaking for the Bench, has observed as follows: (SCC p. 251,para

20) Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOURABH YADAV Signing time: 24-01-2025 17:43:29 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:1774 7 MCRC-56367-2023 "20. ... The section itself envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely, (i) to give effect to an order under the Code; (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court; and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice.

Nevertheless, it is neither possible nor desirable to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction of the court. Undoubtedly, the power possessed by the High Court under the said provision is very wide but it is not unlimited. It has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and cautiously, ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for which alone the court exists. It needs little emphasis that the inherent jurisdiction does not confer an arbitrary power on the High Court to act according to whim or caprice. The power exists to prevent abuse of authority and not to produce injustice."

16. The Supreme Court in the case of XYZ v. State of Gujarat reported in (2019) 10 SCC 337 has held as under :

17. The Supreme Court in the case of S. (Supra) has held as under :

18. The Supreme Court in the case of S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal reported in (2010) 5 SCC 600 has held as under :

Bhajan Lal to take note of two such guidelines which are relevant for the present case:(SCC pp. 378-79, para 102) "(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.

*** (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

18. It is of course a settled legal proposition that in a case where there is sufficient evidence against the accused, which may establish the charge against him/her, the proceedings cannot be quashed. In Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd. this Court observed that a criminal complaint or a charge-sheet can only be quashed by superior courts in exceptional circumstances, Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOURABH YADAV Signing time: 24-01-2025 17:43:29 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:1774 9 MCRC-56367-2023 such as when the allegations in a complaint do not support a prima facie case for an offence.

19. Similarly, in Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque this Court has held that criminal proceedings can be quashed but such a power is to be exercised sparingly and only when such an exercise is justified by the tests that have been specifically laid down in the statutory provisions themselves. It was further observed that superior courts "may examine the questions of fact" when the use of the criminal law machinery could be in the nature of an abuse of authority or when it could result in injustice.

20. In Shakson Belthissor v. State of Kerala this Court relied on earlier precedents to clarify that a High Court while exercising its inherent jurisdiction should not interfere with a genuine complaint but it should certainly not hesitate to intervene in appropriate cases. In fact it was observed: (SCC pp. 478, para 25) "25. ... 16. ... One of the paramount duties of the superior courts is to see that a person who is apparently innocent is not subjected to persecution and humiliation on the basis of a false and wholly untenable complaint.

19. The Supreme Court in the case of Sangeeta Agrawal v. State of U.P. , reported in (2019) 2 SCC 336 has held as under :

20. The Supreme Court in the case of Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460 has held as under :

However, it is not only difficult but is inherently impossible to state with precision such principles. At best and upon objective analysis of various judgments of this Court, we are able to cull out some of the principles to be considered for proper exercise of jurisdiction, particularly, with regard to quashing of charge either in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 or Section 482 of the Code Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOURABH YADAV Signing time: 24-01-2025 17:43:29 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:1774 10 MCRC-56367-2023 or together, as the case may be:

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:1774 11 MCRC-56367-2023 27.10. It is neither necessary nor is the court called upon to hold a full-fledged enquiry or to appreciate evidence collected by the investigating agencies to find out whether it is a case of acquittal or conviction.

27.11. Where allegations give rise to a civil claim and also amount to an offence, merely because a civil claim is maintainable, does not mean that a criminal complaint cannot be maintained.

27.12. In exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 228 and/or under Section 482, the Court cannot take into consideration external materials given by an accused for reaching the conclusion that no offence was disclosed or that there was possibility of his acquittal. The Court has to consider the record and documents annexed therewith by the prosecution.

27.13. Quashing of a charge is an exception to the rule of continuous prosecution. Where the offence is even broadly satisfied, the Court should be more inclined to permit continuation of prosecution rather than its quashing at that initial stage. The Court is not expected to marshal the records with a view to decide admissibility and reliability of the documents or records but is an opinion formed prima facie.

27.14. Where the charge-sheet, report under Section 173(2) of the Code, suffers from fundamental legal defects, the Court may be well within its jurisdiction to frame a charge. 27.15. Coupled with any or all of the above, where the Court finds that it would amount to abuse of process of the Code or that the interest of justice favours, otherwise it may quash the charge. The power is to be exercised ex debito justitiae i.e. to do real and substantial justice for administration of which alone, the courts exist. [Ref. State of W.B. v. Swapan Kumar Guha Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre; Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary ; Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill ; G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P. ; Ajay Mitra v. State of M.P. ; Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate ; State of U.P. v. O.P. Sharma ; Ganesh Narayan Hegde v. S. Bangarappa ; Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque ; Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd. ; Shakson Belthissor v. State of Kerala ; V.V.S. Rama Sharma v. State of U.P. ; Chunduru Siva Ram Krishna v. Peddi Ravindra Babu ; Sheonandan Paswan v. State of Bihar ; State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma ; Lalmuni Devi v. State of Bihar ; M. Krishnan v. Vijay Singh ; Savita v. State of Rajasthan and S.M. Datta v. State of Gujarat .] 27.16. These are the principles which individually and preferably cumulatively (one or more) be taken into consideration as precepts to exercise of extraordinary and wide plenitude and jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code by the High Court. Where the factual foundation for Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOURABH YADAV Signing time: 24-01-2025 17:43:29 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:1774 12 MCRC-56367-2023 an offence has been laid down, the courts should be reluctant and should not hasten to quash the proceedings even on the premise that one or two ingredients have not been stated or do not appear to be satisfied if there is substantial compliance with the requirements of the offence.

28. At this stage, we may also notice that the principle stated by this Court in Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia was reconsidered and explained in two subsequent judgments of this Court in State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma and M.N.Damani v. S.K. Sinha . In the subsequent judgment, the Court held that, that judgment did not declare a law of universal application and what was the principle relating to disputes involving cases of a predominantly civil nature with or without criminal intent.

21. The Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Das v. State of Jharkhand , reported in (2011) 12 SCC 319 has held as under :

22. The Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Akram Siddiqui v. State of Bihar reported in (2019) 13 SCC 350 has held as under :

23. The Supreme Court in the case of State of A.P. v. Gourishetty Mahesh reported in (2010) 11 SCC 226 has held as under :

24. The Supreme Court in the case of Padal Venkata RamaReddy Vs. Kovuri Satyanarayana Reddy reported in (2012) 12 SCC 437 has held as under :

However, such inherent powers are to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution.

13. It is well settled that the inherent powers under Section 482 can be exercised only when no other remedy is available to the litigant and not in a situation where a specific remedy is provided by the statute. It cannot be used if it is inconsistent with specific provisions provided under the Code (vide Kavita v. State and B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana ). If an effective alternative remedy is available, the High Court will not exercise its powers under this section, specially when the applicant may not have availed of that remedy.

14. The inherent power is to be exercised ex debito justitiae, to do real and substantial justice, for Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOURABH YADAV Signing time: 24-01-2025 17:43:29 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:1774 15 MCRC-56367-2023 administration of which alone courts exist. Wherever any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the Court has power to prevent the abuse. It is, however, not necessary that at this stage there should be a meticulous analysis of the case before the trial to find out whether the case ends in conviction or acquittal. ( Vide Dhanalakshmi v. R. Prasanna Kumar ; Ganesh Narayan Hegde v. S. Bangarappa and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque .)

15. It is neither feasible nor practicable to lay down exhaustively as to on what ground the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code should be exercised. But some attempts have been made in that behalf in some of the decisions of this Court vide State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal , Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary , 1 7 Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill and Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC India Ltd .

16. In the landmark case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal this Court considered in detail the provisions of Section 482 and the power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings or FIR. This Court summarised the legal position by laying down the following guidelines to be followed by the High Courts in exercise of their inherent powers to quash a criminal complaint: (SCC pp. 378-79, para 102) "(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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOURABH YADAV Signing time: 24-01-2025 17:43:29 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:1774 16 MCRC-56367-2023 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 Act concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

17. In Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC India Ltd. a petition under Section 482 was filed to quash two criminal complaints. The High Court by a common judgment allowed the petition and quashed both the complaints. The order was challenged in appeal to this Court. While deciding the appeal, this Court laid down the following principles: (SCC p. 748, para 12)

1. The High Courts should not exercise their inherent powers to repress a legitimate prosecution. The power to quash criminal complaints should be used sparingly and with abundant caution. 2. The criminal complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients of the alleged offence. If the necessary factual foundation is laid in the criminal complaint, merely on the ground that a few ingredients have not been stated in detail, the criminal proceedings should not be quashed. Quashing of the complaint is warranted only where the complaint is bereft of even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the alleged offence.

3. It was held that a given set of facts may make out: (a) purely a civil wrong; or (b) purely a criminal offence; or (c) a civil wrong as also a criminal offence. A commercial transaction or a contractual dispute, apart from furnishing a cause of action for seeking remedy in civil law, may also involve a criminal offence.

18. In State of Orissa v. Saroj Kumar Sahoo it has been Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOURABH YADAV Signing time: 24-01-2025 17:43:29 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:1774 17 MCRC-56367-2023 held that probabilities of the prosecution version cannot be analysed at this stage. Likewise, the allegations of mala fides of the informant are of secondary importance. The relevant passage reads thus: (SCC p. 550, para 11) "11. ... It would not be proper for the High Court to analyse the case of the complainant in the light of all probabilities in order to determine whether a conviction would be sustainable and on such premises arrive at a conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed. It would be erroneous to assess the material before it and conclude that the complaint cannot be proceeded with."

19. In Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre this Court held as under: (SCC p. 695, para 7) "7. The legal position is well settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis that the court cannot be utilised for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the court chances of an ultimate conviction is bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the court may while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage."

22. This Court, while reconsidering the judgment in Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia, has consistently observed that where matters are also of civil nature i.e. matrimonial, family disputes, etc., the Court may consider "special facts", "special features" and quash the criminal proceedings to encourage genuine settlement of disputes between the parties.

21. The said judgment in Madhavrao case was reconsidered and explained by this Court in Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOURABH YADAV Signing time: 24-01-2025 17:43:29 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:1774 18 MCRC-56367-2023 State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma which reads as under: (SCC p. 271, para 70) "70. Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v.

Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre also does not help the respondents. In that case the allegations constituted civil wrong as the trustees created tenancy of trust property to favour the third party. A private complaint was laid for the offence under Section 467 read with Section 34 and Section 120-B IPC which the High Court refused to quash under Section

482. This Court allowed the appeal and quashed the proceedings on the ground that even on its own contentions in the complaint, it would be a case of breach of trust or a civil wrong but no ingredients of criminal offence were made out. On those facts and also due to the relation of the settler, the mother, the appellant and his wife, as the son and daughter-in-law, this Court interfered and allowed the appeal. ...

Therefore, the ratio therein is of no assistance to the facts in this case. It cannot be considered that this Court laid down as a proposition of law that in every case the court would examine at the preliminary stage whether there would be ultimate chances of conviction on the basis of allegation and exercise of the power under Section 482 or Article 226 to quash the proceedings or the charge-sheet."

22. Thus, the judgment in Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia does not lay down a law of universal application. Even as per the law laid down therein, the Court cannot examine the facts/evidence, etc. in every case to find out as to whether there is sufficient material on the Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOURABH YADAV Signing time: 24-01-2025 17:43:29 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:1774 19 MCRC-56367-2023 basis of which the case would end in conviction. The ratio of Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia is applicable in cases where the Court finds that the dispute involved therein is predominantly civil in nature and that the parties should be given a chance to each a compromise e.g. matrimonial, property and family disputes, etc. etc. The superior courts have been given inherent powers to prevent the abuse of the process of court; where the Court finds that the ends of justice may be met by quashing the proceedings, it may quash the proceedings, as the end of achieving justice is higher than the end of merely following the law. It is not necessary for the Court to hold a fullfledged inquiry or to appreciate the evidence, collected by the investigating agency to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal.

25. The Supreme Court in the case of M. Srikanth v. State of Telangana , reported in (2019) 10 SCC 373 has held as under :

26. The Supreme Court in the case of M.N. Ojha v. Alok Kumar Srivastav reported in (2009) 9 SCC 682 has held as under :

[If such power is not conceded, it may even lead to injustice.]" (See State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy , SCC p. 703, para 7.)

32. We are conscious that "inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the High Court to act according to whim or caprice. That statutory power has to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases".(See Kurukshetra University v. State of Haryana , SCC p.451, para 2.)

27. The Supreme Court in the case of CBI v. Arvind Khanna reported in (2019) 10 SCC 686 has held as under :

28. Thus, it is clear that although this Court cannot make a roving enquiry Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOURABH YADAV Signing time: 24-01-2025 17:43:29 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:1774 21 MCRC-56367-2023 at this stage, but if the un-controverted allegations do not make out any offence, only then this Court can quash the F.I.R.

29. Further, the Supreme Court in the case of State of MP Vs. Kunwar Singh by order dated 30.06.2021 passed in Cr.A. No.709/2021 has held that a detailed and meticulous appreciation of evidence at the stage of 482 of CrPC is not permissible and should not be done. In the case of Kunwar Singh (supra), the Supreme Court held as under:-

30. On the anvil of the aforesaid law, this Court has already examined the allegation of the present FIR and the criminal case when decided the petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C filed by the father of the applicant.

31. In view of the para no.27 of the judgment in the case of father of the applicant, wherein this Court declined to interfere in respect of same FIR and criminal proceedings, and this court has considered the submission of the applicant and on examination of the facts floating on the surface of the case, finds that prima facie allegation are existing in the FIR. The charges have already been framed and the trial has already considered the prima facie material. The said order has not been challenged.

32. In view of the aforesaid, this court does not find any case for interference.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:1774 22 MCRC-56367-2023

33. Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed.

(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) JUDGE Sourabh Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOURABH YADAV Signing time: 24-01-2025 17:43:29