State of Rajasthan, Through P.P. vs Garima Agarwal W/o Shri Ronak Agarwal, D/o Shri Uday

home and family business firm, namely, M/s Gulabchand Anant Ram, are situated at Sumerpur, Pali. Respondent No.2– complainant is an educated woman, holding an M.Tech degree in Computer Science, and was residing with her parents at Kota prior to her marriage.

4.2 Petitioner No.1 is mother of petitioner No.2 and happens to be the mother-in-law of respondent No.2. Petitioner No. 3 is sister of petitioner No. 2 and, happens to be the sister-in-law of respondent No. 2. At the time of marriage, petitioner No. 3 was unmarried and was residing with petitioners No. 1 and 2 at their [2025:RJ-JP:38126] (3 of 28) [CRLMP-10537/2022] residence in Sumerpur, where respondent No. 2 also started to live after her marriage. Thus, it is an admitted fact that after the marriage, respondent no.2 resided with her husband- petitioner no.2, at her matrimonial home Sumerpur, Pali, alongwith petitioners No. 1 & 3 as a joint family member. However, subsequently, after registration of the FIR and during the pendency of investigation, petitioner No.3 has got married.

4.3 The father of petitioner No. 2, who was father-in-law of respondent No.2– complainant, passed away on 13.05.2021, i.e., after the marriage but prior to the registration of the impugned FIR on 13.06.2022.

4.4 Petitioner No.4 is the paternal uncle (tauji) of petitioner No.2 and, a distant relative in-laws of respondent No.2–complainant, who is well settled in his independent business and resides separately at Jodhpur.

4.5 The impugned FIR came to be lodged by respondent No.2– complainant at Mahila Thana, Kota, on 13.06.2022, after failure of mediation proceedings between the parties. Since respondent No.2, after leaving her matrimonial home at Sumerpur, had started to live with her parents at Kota, where the mediation proceedings were conducted, hence, the FIR was registered by respondent no.2 at Kota and there is no dispute about the fact that the FIR has been lodged at the jurisdictional Police Station.

5. The impugned FIR is detailed enough and runs into as many as 37 paragraphs. A meaningful perusal thereof reveals that the impugned FIR, contains factual scenario in detail, with narration of relevant dates, occasions, events, as well as the manner and nature of the atrocities and cruelties, allegedly committed by the [2025:RJ-JP:38126] (4 of 28) [CRLMP-10537/2022] petitioners, against the complainant. Specific allegations regarding to dupe the complainant and her family, even prior to the engagement and after marriage, by giving false assurance by stating that petitioner No.2 had his business and own residence at Jodhpur and after marriage he will shift from Sumerpur to Jodhpur, where she could also establish her own coaching and teaching institution, have been made in the FIR. There are allegations in the FIR to harass the complainant by the petitioners on account of demands for dowry and for a cash amount of Rs. 50 lakhs to purchase the flat at Jodhpur. There are also allegations against petitioners No. 1, 2, and 3 to physically abuse and assault the complainant, apart from humiliating, harassing, and teasing her in manifold ways, time and again. Specific allegations to commit criminal breach of trust by petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3, by not returning the jewellery articles and streedhan of the complainant, despite demand which were entrusted by with them have also been made. Petitioner No.4 has been implicated, being a mediator in fixing the marriage and a close family member of petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3, who has been alleged to have repeated visit from Jodhpur to Sumerpur from time to time and extends his support to the husband, mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the complainant in subjecting her to harassment and cruelty. It is relevant to note here that although in the FIR an allegation regarding an attempt to kill the complainant by throwing her out of a moving vehicle was levelled, but the FIR was registered only for the offences under Sections 498-A, 406 and 323 IPC. [2025:RJ-JP:38126] (5 of 28) [CRLMP-10537/2022] For ready reference, few relevant paragraphs of impugned FIR, are being reproduced hereunder:- (English Version) “10. That before the marriage, it was clearly decided between the family of the applicant and the accused that the applicant is a working professional and after marriage, she will stand on her own feet and work and will lead a married life with the accused in a dignified manner without being dependent on anyone, while remaining employed, but after the marriage, the accused stopped the complainant from going out of the house and started making her work like a maid in the house the whole day and the kitchen work was given to the complainant the whole day and accused no. 2 and 3 used to sit there like queens the whole day and get their demands fulfilled from the applicant and they used to get immense pleasure by torturing the applicant physically and mentally. In this regard, when the complainant on 10.07.2020 asked accused no. 1 in front of accused no. 2 and 3 that when would they shift to Jodhpur, because the complainant wanted to do her job there, on hearing these things, accused no. 1 slapped her hard in front of accused no. 2 and 3 and said that all these things were said earlier for solemnization of marriage and now whatever we want will happen, stay quietly at home and do the work like a maid as per our instructions, otherwise we know how to get everything done and after marriage the accused kept her confined in the house, and imposed restrictions on her going out, she was made to do all the household work by treating her like a maid all day long and she was given only that much food to eat which was sufficient for life. The applicant was unable to go out of the house even if she wanted to. Whenever there was a dire need, accused no. 1, accused no. 2 and 3 would accompany her and get her the things that she needed, after much pleading. This kind of behaviour was meted out to the applicant so that she could not ask to go out for work and the accused could get a maid for the entire house. Accused No. 1, 2 and 3 did not give any money to the applicant to fulfill her daily needs, they had made her dependent on every penny, whenever she asked to go to the market for any work, they would taunt her saying that has your father given you some treasure which will fulfill all your demands, you will have to live here in whatever condition and situation we keep you in. 12. That the accused took possession of all the complainant's jewellery and made her wear artificial [2025:RJ-JP:38126] (6 of 28) [CRLMP-10537/2022] jewellery and bangle. Whenever the accused went to visit any of his relatives, he would lock the applicant in the house and the applicant was never taken to any wedding ceremony of any society or relative and the accused themselves would go out after locking her at home. In this manner, the accused subjected the applicant to physical and mental torture and taunts after marriage. However, in order to protect the honour and dignity of her parents and family and for fear of being insulted, applicant never informed anyone about the true situation and endured all the physical and mental suffering so that her parents' reputation in the society would not be tarnished in any way. She never lodged any complaint with the hope that after some time, the behaviour of the accused would change in any way. 14. That the complainant was not shifted to her room till 14.07.2020. At around 8:00 PM, while accused No. 1 was away with his friends and the complainant was working in the kitchen with her mother-in-law, accused No. 3 went to her room upstairs, which had been temporarily given to the complainant, and scattered all the belongings in it, with an intention to harass her. When the complainant came into the room and saw the entire situation and told accused no. 3 about it that why did you do this, then instead of accepting her mistake, she got ready to fight with the complainant and started abusing her and started beating her. When accused no. 1, i.e. the husband of the complainant, came home and the complainant told him the entire thing, then instead of explaining to his sister accused no. 3, he started fighting with the complainant and abused her a lot and beat her. After which the complainant started feeling nervous, dizzy and her health deteriorated. 16. That this kind of cruel behavior of the accused never stopped and from July 2020, accused No. 2 and 3 used to complain and provoke accused No. 1 against the complainant on one thing or the other, whenever he returned home from work, due to which accused No. 1 would become extremely angry and would abuse not only the complainant but also her parents and brother with filthy words and would beat the complainant along with accused No. 2 and 3. And many times when accused No. 1 himself used to beat the complainant alone, accused No. 2 and 3 would stand silently and would be very happy deep down. They never tried to explain or stop accused No. 1, but on the contrary, they kept on instigating accused No. 1 to torture the complainant more and more physically and mentally. [2025:RJ-JP:38126] (7 of 28) [CRLMP-10537/2022]

18. That on 25.07.2020, the complainant's brother and sister-in-law (Bhabhi) went to her in-laws' house to pick her up. After which, the complainant came home and told her parents about the extremely cruel and brutal behaviour of the accused towards her. After which, the complainant's parents spoke to the accused in this regard and did not send the complainant to her in-laws' house. At that time, due to the behaviour of the accused, the complainant was extremely scared and afraid of going to her in-laws' house. She started fearing that if she went to her in-laws' house, the accused would treat her brutally and cruelly and kill her. Due to this kind of cruel and brutal behaviour, when the complainant stayed with her parents, she could not sleep at night and would cry and sob due to the cruel and brutal behaviour of the accused towards her and sometimes would wake up in fear. Due to this, while staying at her parents' place, she started feeling that her future has become bleak due to this kind of behaviour of the accused, but even after that, the complainant and her family members made efforts to save the complainant's house and on 08.09.2020, a meeting was held between the complainant and the family of the accused at Hotel Ashoka Residency, Bhopalganj in Bhilwara and an agreement was reached that now accused number 1 to 3 will not indulge in any kind of assault, fight or quarrel with the complainant, and will not torture the complainant physically or mentally in any way, and it was also decided that accused number 1 will soon start his business in Jodhpur and the complainant will shift to Jodhpur with accused number 1. After all these assurances, the complainant's parents, in order to save the complainant's married life and her future from being ruined, the complainant, risking her life, came to her in-laws' house after being assured by accused No. 1, 2 and 3, and the complainant's father-in-law, Mr. Vijay Agarwal, who was alive at that time. However, upon arriving there, the complainant noticed that a large amount of belongings that were not previously in Sumerpur have also been moved to Sumerpur. When the complainant inquired about this from accused No. 1, he stated that accused No. 1 had vacated the Jodhpur flat, although, it had been agreed between the two families that accused No.1 would soon start his own business in Jodhpur and relocate there. However, the accused, after deceiving and lying to the complainant and her parents, called the complainant back to Sumerpur. However, prior to marriage it was agreed between accused, complainant and her parents that accused no.1 after [2025:RJ-JP:38126] (8 of 28) [CRLMP-10537/2022] purchasing his own flat in Jodhpur would start living with complainant, but neither accused bought flat in Jodhpur nor accused No.1 took complainant to Jodhpur. In fact, the accused never intended to shift to Jodhpur. 20. That from October 2020, accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4, including the father-in-law of the complainant Vijay Agarwal (who was alive at that time) began pressuring the complainant to ask for a sum of ₹50 lakh from her parents to purchase a well-furnished flat in Jodhpur, or to arrange for a well-furnished flat in Jodhpur. When the complainant told the accused that her parents had spent beyond their means on the wedding and they were in no financial position to pay such a large sum or to purchase a well-furnished flat in Jodhpur as demanded by the accused, and the complainant refused to comply with such demands from her parents, to which the accused became enraged and began to harass her physically and mentally. She was not allowed to leave the house and was not taken to any functions or weddings of close relatives with them. She was told to cook her own food and stay at home. The accused did this so that the complainant could fulfill their illegal demands. The accused also said that only when she either brings money from her father for the flat or her father gets them a flat, they will send her to live in Jodhpur, otherwise she will have to rot here in Sumerpur for the rest of her life.

21. That on 29.10.2020, the complainant's parents and elder sister-in-law came to the complainant's in-laws' house in Sumerpur with Karva Chauth gifts and stayed there. On 30.10.2020, when they woke up in the morning, they found all the items of the gifts scattered there. In this regard, they did not say anything to the accused in order to save their daughter and her marriage, however, accused No. 1 was advised by the complainant's father to live a happy married life with the complainant, pursuant to which, accused No. 4, along with accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3, told the complainant's father that accused No. 1 was moving to Jodhpur and therefore, a furnished flat would be required to be purchased for the purpose of his residence for which complainant’s father would have to pay Rs. 50 lakh in cash, or he could purchase a well-furnished flat in Jodhpur in the name of accused No. 1, only after which accused No. 1 would be able to shift there. The complainant's father expressed his inability to do so, upon which accused Nos. 1 to 4 told the complainant's parents and sister-in-law in front of the complainant that if they could not fulfill this demand, then [2025:RJ-JP:38126] (9 of 28) [CRLMP-10537/2022] their daughter would have to rot here in Sumerpur. Accused Nos. 1, 2, and 3 also taunted the complainant's father, saying, "We didn't like the gifts you brought for Karva Chauth. You should have brought everything in gold and silver." The complainant was deeply embarrassed and ashamed in front of father to see the accused's greedy behavior towards her father, but was unable to do anything. Subsequently, on 31.10.2020, the complainant's parents and elder sister-in-law returned to Kota. On Karva Chauth, the complainant did not eat anything and observed a fast for the long life of accused No.1, however, accused No. 1 paid no attention to this and upon returning from work, he began fighting and abusing her over trivial matters as usual. The complainant did not eat or drink anything till night. During this time, the complainant made a Whatsapp video call to her parents while crying, but even this condition of the complainant did not make the accused feel any pity towards her. 29. That even after the death of the accused no.1's father, when accused No. 1 to 3 returned to Sumerpur with the complainant in June 2021, still there was no change in their behavior. The complainant had thought that after the death of accused No. 1's father, the responsibility of the household would fall on accused No. 1, and that his behavior would change, and that this responsibility might lead to a change in his understanding, however, nothing like this happened. Behaviour of Accused Nos. 1 to 3 towards the complainant became even worse than before, and to fulfill their illegal demand of the sum of Rs. 50 lakhs for the flat or to get the flat from her parents, they started torturing the complainant daily, both physically and mentally, which continued unabated and in the month of July itself, the accused severely assaulted the complainant, causing her to suffer an injury in spinal cord after being forcefully pushed from behind by the accused. Due to this, the complainant suffered severe physical pain and despite repeated requests from the complainant, accused No. 1 took her to Jodhpur on 20.07.2021 and consulted Dr. Kamlesh Malviya, who upon seeing the complainant's condition advised her to get an MRI done immediately, on which accused No. 1 did get the MRI done, but he did not take her to Dr. Kamlesh Malviya for a follow-up visit, saying, "It's nothing to worry about, you'll get better on your own." Consequently, the complainant suffered excruciating pain in her back for several days due to spinal compression. A copy of this MRI report, along with a copy of the prescription, is enclosed. [2025:RJ-JP:38126] (10 of 28) [CRLMP-10537/2022]

31. That the complainant and her family were told all false statements by the accused before the marriage. Ninja Enterprises, which the accused claimed to be owned by accused no. 1 and his father, did not belong to them, however, with the sole purpose of marrying the complainant, they claimed Ninja Enterprises C&F Vitthal Balaji Cashew for Raj. Exporter and Importer of Dry Fruits of Agro Commodities Shop no. 6, Mandore Mandi, Jodhpur as their own. The complainant and her family were deceived by all the accused from the very beginning and they married the complainant by deceiving her and completely ruined her life and career. Due to this cruel behavior of the accused, she has become dependent on her parents and brothers. Accused no. 1 married the complainant only to satisfy his lust and to fulfil his desire of getting as much dowry as possible. 35. That the complainant and her father left Kota on 21.05.2022 and went to Jodhpur on 22.05.2022 and told accused No. 1 to 4 that you have ruined the life of the complainant and have not shown any care till date. It was also said that just to show off in the society, you have mentioned the name of the complainant in the newspaper regarding the first death anniversary of the father-in-law of the complainant on 13.05.2022, describing her as a member of your family. And you have not even mentioned the name of the complainant in the marriage card of accused No. 3 Shivangi. In fact, you have treated the complainant very cruelly and made her life hell. On this, all the accused became extremely angry and abused and misbehaved with the complainant and her father. After that the complainant and her father told them that you should return all the streedhan (woman’s property) of the complainant to us, wo which the accused did not allow the complainant and her father to enter the house and said that you can take whatever action you want against us, we will not give you even a single penny, and after abusing them they pushed them out of the house. In this way there has been a breach of trust regarding the streedhan (woman’s property) of the complainant and since then the complainant is living in Kota and is dependent on her father. Accused no. 1 has never enquired about the well being of the complainant nor has he given even a single penny for her livelihood. [2025:RJ-JP:38126] (11 of 28) [CRLMP-10537/2022]

6. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners, is that the allegations made in the impugned FIR are omnibus, general, frivolous and vague and considering the educated and affluent status of the petitioners, such nature of allegations do not inspire confidence at all nor carry any trustworthiness. His contention is that the petitioners are reputed persons belonging to a high-class business family, whose businesses are well-established at Sumerpur and Jodhpur. Indeed, Respondent No.2 was never subjected to any kind of cruelty or harassment for demand of Rs.50 lakhs. Even no dowry articles were either demanded or received at the time of marriage, which was solemnized during the COVID-19 pandemic and entire expenses of Hotel were too borne by Father of petitioner no.2. The deposition of cash amount of Rs. 25 lakhs, in form of FDRs, was made by father of complainant, in the name of the complainant only as a gift, by his own wish, without any demand from the petitioners. It has been stated that Jewellery articles and streedhan of the complainant, have already been deposited with the Investigating Officer, and the complainant is at liberty to receive the same. According to petitioners, the entire set of allegations in the FIR have been levelled with ulterior and oblique motives, which are far from the real truth and are concoted and malicious. The FIR is malicious in nature and has been registered as a tool of arm-twisting, to exert undue pressure upon the petitioners in order to fulfill unreasonable demands of respondent no.2, who hardly resided with the petitioners at Sumerpur for about three months only and was adamant to shift to Jodhpur, by separating her husband from his parents and family. The FIR has been registered under the tutoring of [2025:RJ-JP:38126] (12 of 28) [CRLMP-10537/2022] respondent no. 2’s parents, whose interference in the family of the petitioners was immense. Therefore, prayer of petitioners is that the FIR deserves to be quashed, and the proceedings arising therefrom, deserve to be nipped in the bud, as the same amount to an abuse of the process of law and is nothing but sheer harassment of the petitioners.

7. Further, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the chat history of mobile phone and WhatsApp messages, exchanged between petitioner No.2 and the complainant, is material and relevant piece of evidence, which was produced by the petitioners before the Investigating Officer, wayback on

17.02.2023. A hard copy of such chat history has also been placed on record before this Hon’ble Court. It has been submitted that upon perusal of the said chat history and conversation between the parties, the allegations made in the FIR regarding demand of dowry, subjecting the complainant to cruelty and harassment, etc., stand falsified. A grievance has been raised that the police have not considered this vital piece of evidence during the course of investigation and trying to implicate the petitioners under influence of complainant’s family. He pointed out that initially, police found all the allegations of FIR false but complainant got changed the investigation repeatedly, just to harass the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners, to substantiate his submissions that whatsapp chatting material ought to be considered by police, has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered in case of Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh: Criminal Appeal No. 3831 of [2025:RJ-JP:38126] (13 of 28) [CRLMP-10537/2022] 2025, decided vide judgment dated 02.09.2025, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court opined that if the material relied upon by the accused has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant, and if the material is such that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/ complainant, same could be taken into consideration by the Court, to determine the veracity of the prayer for quashing of the FIR in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.PC.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners have further drawn the attention of this Court to the fact that after registration of the impugned FIR on 13.06.2022, respondent no.2 filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before Family Court No.1, Kota on 25.04.2024. His submission is that since petitioner no. 2 had already instituted a divorce petition before the Family Court at Jodhpur on 02.02.2023, which has now been transferred to the Family Court, Kota under the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, petitioner No. 2 is not agreeable to resume conjugal or marital relationship with the complainant, but the intention of respondent no. 2 has manifested by filing of the application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking restitution of conjugal rights that she has never harassed and subjected to cruelty at her matrimonial home, after marriage. Learned counsel further pointed out that the complainant has also filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act in the divorce proceedings filed by petitioner No.2, as well as an another application under Section 125 Cr.PC, for grant of maintenance has also been filed. Learned counsel pointed out that there are serious contradictions between the averments, made by the complainant in the impugned FIR and the averments made by [2025:RJ-JP:38126] (14 of 28) [CRLMP-10537/2022] her in two applications filed separately under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and Section 125 Cr.PC. Such contradictions prima facie demonstrate that the allegations levelled in the FIR are concocted, false, frivolous, vexatious and have been made maliciously, just with the intent to settle personal grudges of the complainant and her parents and to exert pressure upon the petitioner to live as perwhims and wishes of respondent No.2 and her parents. Certified photostat copies of all the three applications filed by respondent No. 2 before the Family Court, Kota, have been shown to this Court during the course of arguments, and since the same are court’s record and undisputed documents, they are allowed to be taken on record.

9. Learned counsel for petitioners to precise their legal submissions and instead of multiplying the case law, have heavely relied upon a recent judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Achin Gupta Vs. State of Haryana [(2025) 3 SCC 756] to contend that when an accused comes before the High Court, invoking the inherent powers u/s. 482 of Cr.PC, to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed, essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances, the High Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. Learned counsel pointed out that the Hon’ble Supreme Court further observed in this judgment that it will not be enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/ complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not as, in frivolous or vexatious [2025:RJ-JP:38126] (15 of 28) [CRLMP-10537/2022] proceedings, the court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection, to try and read between the lines, in order to do justice and prevent abuse of process of law and travesty of justice.

10. Per contra the contentions put forth by learned counsel for the petitioners, have vehemently been refuted by learned counsel for the complainant, stating inter alia that a bare perusal of the allegations made in the FIR, shows that the same disclose the commission of a cognizable offence by the petitioners. Hence, in such circumstances, the High Court should loath to interfere with the investigation on the allegations of impugned FIR, and shall not hold a mini-trial at its own level, which is neither expected nor permissible to be done by the High Court at this stage. His submission is that quashing of a criminal complaint or FIR is an exception and a rarity, and not an ordinary rule. The powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Now Section 528 of BNSS, 2023) should be exercised with due care, circumspection, and sparingly, only in the rarest of rare cases. At this stage, considering the nature of the allegations and the entirety of facts and circumstances, it cannot be held that the FIR was registered by the complainant with malice or to seek vengeance or settle personal grudges, rather real truth would be reveal only after conclusion of investigation, if the same is done fairly and thoroughly. Learned counsel for the complainant has relied upon the oft- quoted judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered in case [2025:RJ-JP:38126] (16 of 28) [CRLMP-10537/2022] of State of Haryana v. Choudhary Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335], as also in case of M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra [(2021) 19 SCC 401] to contend that at the nascent stage, the impugned FIR does not warrant quashing by the High Court in exercise of its inherent and extraordinary jurisdiction.

11. Learned Public Prosecutor, while opposing the present petition and refuting the contentions, advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners, has prayed for dismissal of the petition. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that due to the operation of the interim order dated 14.02.2023 passed in the present petition, the investigation has not been completed so far. However, on the strength of the factual report of investigation dated 11.09.2025, learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that the investigation in the impugned FIR has been carried out through different Investigating Officers, which has been detailed in the investigation report. As per the final investigation report, based on appreciation of the statements of the complainant, her parents, relatives, friends, and other independent persons, as well as on consideration of audio and video recordings and other material collected by the investigating agency, it has been found that accused petitioners No. 1, 2 and 3 subjected the complainant to cruelty, both mentally and physically, as also abused and assaulted her, hence, offences under Sections 498A, 406, and 323 IPC have been found established against them. As far as petitioner No. 4 is concerned, he resides at Jodhpur and the allegations made against him have not been proved; he is not involved in the aforementioned offences. Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that, apart [2025:RJ-JP:38126] (17 of 28) [CRLMP-10537/2022] from streedhan of the complainant, which has been seized, the remaining streedhan is yet to be recovered from the accused persons, and the FSL report in respect of voice samples of the complainant and her father, to verify the conversation in the video recording, is still awaited.

12. Heard. Considered.

13. At the outset, it is noteworthy that it is not the case of the petitioners that the allegations made in the FIR, on their face value, do not disclose cognizable offences, or that they are so absurd and inherently improbable that such allegations would neither warrant investigation by the police nor lead any prudent person to conclude that there is sufficient reason to proceed with investigation and prosecution against the petitioners. Indeed, the allegations made in the FIR by the complainant appear to be manifestly tainted with mala fides and have been levelled merely to create undue pressure upon the petitioners to kneel down before the whims and wishes of respondent No. 2 and her parents. The grounds to assail the impugned FIR by the petitioners fall in a different compartment.

14. Concededly, the marriage between petitioner No. 2 and respondent No. 2 was an arranged marriage, solemnised during the period of the COVID-19 pandemic at Hotel Sumerpur, Pali and it has come on record during investigation that the expenses of the hotel were borne by the father of petitioner No. 2. It is further apparent from the record that both parties are well-educated and belong to well-off families. It is true that from perusal of FIR, the allegations reflect frustration and displeasure on the part of respondent No. 2, who felt duped by petitioner No. 2 and his [2025:RJ-JP:38126] (18 of 28) [CRLMP-10537/2022] family members, because she has clearly averred that, prior to marriage, she was given belief that petitioner No. 2 had his own established business in the name of Ninja Enterprises C&F Vitthal Balaji Cashew for Raj. Exporter and Importer of Dry Fruits of Agro Commoditie, apart from the affluent, well-established, and flourishing family business, namely, M/s Gulabchand Anant Ram at Sumerpur, Pali and he has his own house as well. It appears that respondent No. 2, being an educated girl, was desirous to establish herself in educational field, by starting a coaching/ tuition centre at Jodhpur and she was given an assurance that, after marriage, petitioner No. 2 alongwith respondent No.2 would shift to Jodhpur, and she would be able to pursue her ambition of becoming financially independent and to stand on her own feet. However, such assurances extended by the petitioners and their family members, to respondent No.2 and her family members, proved untrue. Indeed, at that time petitioner No.2 did not have his own residence and independent business at Jodhpur. The aspirations and desires of respondent No.2 were shattered, due to continue by petitioner No. 2, his family business at Sumerpur, and thereby creating compelling circumstances for respondent No. 2, to reside at Sumerpur only with the joint family and perform only household chores. Assuming these averments to be true, without addition or subtraction, it is clear that after marriage respondent No. 2 lived with petitioner No. 2 at Sumerpur, Pali in parental matrimonial home, where her father-in-law, mother-in-law, and unmarried sister-in-law, were also residing together as a joint family. In this view, at the face value of such factual matrix, the allegations made by the complainant/ respondent No. 2 in the FIR [2025:RJ-JP:38126] (19 of 28) [CRLMP-10537/2022] against petitioners No. 1, 2, and 3 regarding subjecting her harassment in manifold ways and cause mental and physical cruelty upon her during course of their joint living at Sumerpur, cannot be said to be inherently improbable, unnatural, or unbelievable by this Court at this stage.

15. It has further transpired from perusal of the FIR and during investigation that during course of residence of respondent No.2 at her matrimonial home at Sumerpur, respondent No. 2 had to share a room with her unmarried sister-in-law (petitioner No. 3 herein). Petitioner No. 1, the mother-in-law of respondent No. 2, being a non-working woman, was also residing in the same house. Therefore, the allegations regarding their abusive behaviour, harassment, and subjecting respondent No. 2 to mental and physical cruelty in multiple ways, may not, at this stage, be held to be untrue or malicious, more so when on the basis of statements of witnesses and after considering the attending circumstances, including the audio & video clippings and other materials referred in the investigation report, such allegations of cruelty have been prima facie found established. Respondent No. 2 has made serious allegations that, time and again, she was abused by petitioners No. 1, 2, and 3 for one or the other reason. Specific allegations with disclosure of dates and events, have also been made, stating that she was assaulted and slapped by petitioner No. 2, her husband, and petitioner No. 3, her unmarried sister-in-law. In the FIR, serious allegations regarding demand of Rs. 50 lakhs from the parents of respondent No. 2, in order to purchase a flat at Jodhpur for petitioner No. 2 have also been levelled. Here, it is worthy to note that it has come [2025:RJ-JP:38126] (20 of 28) [CRLMP-10537/2022] on record, as an undisputed fact, that at the time of marriage, solemnized during the COVID-19 pandemic, FDRs to the tune of Rs. 25 lakhs were made by the father of respondent No. 2 in the name of respondent No.2. Whether such FDRs were made on demand or voluntarily by his own wish, is a matter of investigation. From perusal of the above-reproduced paragraphs, from the lengthy FIR, it stands clear that there are specific allegations against petitioners No. 1, 2, and 3, demonstrating their distinct roles and intentions to subject the respondent No. 2 to mental and physical cruelty. Section 498-A of the IPC includes within its scope the mental and physical torture made upon a woman by her husband or the relatives of her husband, and harassment of the woman with a view to coercing her or any person related to her, to meet any unlawful demand.

16. A perusal of the progress report of investigation reveals that, in order to verify the allegations of cruelty and harassment of respondent No. 2 by petitioners No. 1, 2, and 3, statements of several witnesses, including the complainant, her parents, neighbours, and independent persons i.e. Sh. Deepak Kumar Goyal, Sh. Prakash Agarwal, Smt. Suman Agarwal, Sh. Madhusudan Gupta, Sh. Praveen Kumar Goyal, Smt. Premlata Goyal, Sh. Indra Kumar, Smt. Rekha Agarwal, Sh. Suresh Kumar, Smt. Jyotsana Agarwal, Sh. Dilip Kumar Agarwal, Smt. Sushila Devi Singhal, Smt. Rukma Devi, Sh. Lakhpat Raj Gandhi, Sh. Babu Singh (Driver) and Smt. Savita (Housemaid), were recorded. Audio and video clippings were also scanned. Investigation was carried on by as many as seven Investigating Officers, and lastly, [2025:RJ-JP:38126] (21 of 28) [CRLMP-10537/2022] after appreciating material on record, the investigating agency formed following opinion:- “;g gS fd fookg ls iwoZ ifjoknhi{k o vkjksih i{k ds e/; ifjokfn;k xfjek dks fookg ds ckn esa mlds ifr jkSud ds lkFk tks/kiwj esa j[kus dh ckr r; gqbZ Fkh ijUrq vkjksihx.k }kjk ifjokfn;k dks fookg ds i'pkr vius xkao lqesjiqj ftyk ikyh esa j[kk tkdj 'kkjhfjd o ekufld izrkfM+r fd;k x;k gS ftldh rkbZn ifjokfn;k ds firk o vkjksihi{k ds vkil esa gqbZ okrkZ dh vkWfM;ks fjdkWfMZax ls gksrh gSA ;g gS fd ifjokfn;k xfjek dk ngst dk lkeku o L=h/ku vkjksih ifr jkSud o vkjksfi;k lkl js[kk ds ikl gksuk vuqla/kku ls ik;k x;k gSA ;g gS fd ifjokfn;k xfjek ds lkFk vkjksih ifr jkSud] lkl js[kk o uun f'kokaxh }kjk 'kkjhfjd o ekufld izrkMuk ds laca/k esa ifjoknhi{k o vkjksihi{k ds vkil esa gksVy v'kksdk jsthMsalh] Hkksikyx<+] HkhyokMk esa ikfjokfjd ehfVax gksuk vuqla/kku ls ik;k x;k gS ftlesa vkjksihi{k }kjk ifjokfn;k xfjek ds lkFk vkbZUnk >xM+k ugha djus o vPNk O;ogkj djus ckcr~ lgefr gksus ij ifjokfn;k xfjek dks iqu% llqjky Hkstk x;k gSA ftlls ;g Li"V gS fd vkjksihx.k ifr jkSud] lkl js[kk o uun f'kokaxh }kjk ifjokfn;k dks 'kkjhfjd o ekufld izrkfM+r fd;k x;k gSA ;g gS fd izdj.k esa vkjksfi;k uun f'kokaxh dk fookg fnukad 26-05-2022 dks gqvk gSA fookg gksus ls iwoZ f'kokaxh ifjokfn;k xfjek ds llqjky esa vius HkkbZ jkSud] eka js[kk ds lkFk jgrh FkhA mDr rhuksa }kjk feydj xfjek dks 'kkjhfjd o ekufld izrkfM+r djuk vuqla/kku ls ik;k x;k gSA” The fact findings recorded by the Investigating Officer, after thorough investigation, cannot be disbelieved or belied at their face value, since the same are supported by ample evidence. At this stage, it is not within the scope of the High Court to assume that such findings suffer from biasedness or maladies.

17. The contention of the counsel for petitioners is that the WhatsApp chats between petitioner No. 2 and respondent No. 2, if considered, are sufficient to belie all the allegations of cruelty and harassment made by respondent No. 2 in the impugned FIR. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Achin Gupta (Supra), more particularly paragraphs 28, 30, and 31 thereof. In the case of Achin Gupta (Supra), the factual matrix before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was entirely different. In that case, the appellant-husband and respondent-wife had lived together after marriage for nearly a decade, and a child was born [2025:RJ-JP:38126] (22 of 28) [CRLMP-10537/2022] out of their wedlock. A divorce petition was filed by appellant- husband, but later on same was withdrawn. The respondent-wife was also facing allegations by her mother-in-law in proceedings under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act. The allegations levelled by the wife against the parents of the appellant, as well as against his brother and sister, were found to be apparently false by the investigating agency itself. There was also an unexplained delay of two years in lodging the FIR, that too after filing of divorce petition by appellant-husband. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, on the basis of the investigation report, observed and opined that the allegations against the appellant-husband were vague, general, and sweeping, specifying no instances of criminal conduct. On the basis of such hazy allegations, the police had submitted a charge-sheet against the appellant-husband. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further observed that the FIR did not indicate any specific date or time of the alleged offence/ offences allegedly committed by the appellant-husband; rather, the FIR was found to be an outburst arising from matrimonial dispute. Hence, on the face value, the allegations were noticed to be manifestly tainted with mala fides. In such backdrop of the factual matrix, the Hon’ble Supreme Court quashed the FIR and charge-sheet against the appellant-husband.

18. The factual scenario in the case at hand, is entirely different. The FIR has been registered within a period of about two years from the date of solemnisation of marriage and, on the face value of the allegations as discussed hereinabove, same cannot be treated as manifestly motivated with mala fides or levelled with [2025:RJ-JP:38126] (23 of 28) [CRLMP-10537/2022] any ill intention. Rather, during investigation, the allegations have been found established. The factual findings of the Investigating Officer are based on appreciation of evidence. It is difficult to discern that merely on the basis of the WhatsApp chats, sought to be relied upon by the petitioners, the entire other material evidence collected by the investigating agency—including statements of several witnesses, audio and video clippings, photographs, and other attending circumstances—can be brushed aside. However, in the light of the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Achin Gupta (Supra), it is for the investigating agency to consider such WhatsApp chats between petitioner No. 2 and respondent No. 2 before concluding the investigation. At this stage, this Court cannot hold that the WhatsApp chats is an admissible peace of evidence in accordance with law and unrefuted. These factors are to be considered and examined by the investigating agency. It is expected that the investigating agency shall conclude the investigation fairly, and after considering the WhatsApp chats between the parties, treating them at least as a relevant piece of evidence, and thereafter shall form its final opinion on the investigation.

19. It is equally well established principle of law that the High Court, while exercising is extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.PC (now Section 528 of BNSS, 2023), may not hold a mini- trial, by evaluating the evidence and truthfulness of allegations. Such principle of law, as expounded in catena of judgments, reference of one judgment delivered in case of M/s Neeharika [2025:RJ-JP:38126] (24 of 28) [CRLMP-10537/2022] Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) would be suffice, which holds the field. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Priyanka Jaiswal v. State of Jharkhand [2024 SCC OnLine SC 685], held and observed in Para No. 13, as under: “13. We say so for reasons more than one. This Court in catena of Judgments has consistently held that at the time of examining the prayer for quashing of the criminal proceedings, the court exercising extra-ordinary jurisdiction can neither undertake to conduct a mini trial nor enter into appreciation of evidence of a particular case. The correctness or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint cannot be examined on the touchstone of the probable defence that the Accused may raise to stave off the prosecution and any such misadventure by the Courts resulting in proceedings being quashed would be set aside. This Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Akhil Sharda (2023) 11 SCC 626 held to the following effect:

28. Having gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court by which the High Court has set aside the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, it appears that the High Court has virtually conducted a mini trial, which as such is not permissible at this stage and while deciding the application Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure. As observed and held by this Court in a catena of decisions no mini trial can be conducted by the High Court in exercise of powers Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure jurisdiction and at the stage of deciding the application Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, the High Court cannot get into appreciation of evidence of the particular case being considered.” (emphasis supplied) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in this case, having gone through the relevant allegations made in the FIR, observed that the averments made in the FIR, clearly disclose prima facie case being made out against the accused respondent nos.3, 4 & 8 and correctness, or otherwise truthfulness of the allegations, is a [2025:RJ-JP:38126] (25 of 28) [CRLMP-10537/2022] matter which requires to be investigated. The judgment of High Court, quashing of FIR, was set aside and deprecated, observing that the High Court erred in entering into merits of such allegations by virtually conducting a mini-trial, which was clearly impermissible. As far as other respondents No. 5 to 7 are concerned, allegations against them were observed to be omnibus, non-specific and no specific overt act against them was imputed. Hence, the order of quashing of FIR qua respondents no. 5 to 7 was affirmed.

20. In case of N. Soundaram Vs. PK Pounraj [(2014) 10 SCC 616], the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Para No.13, held and observed as under:- “13. It is well settled by this Court in catena of cases that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has to be exercised sparingly and cautiously to prevent the abuse of process of any D Court and to secure the ends of justice. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court should refrain from giving a prima facie decision unless there are compelling circumstances to do so. Taking the allegations and the complaint as they were, without adding or subtracting anything, if no offence was made out, only then the High Court would be justified in quashing the proceedings in the exercise of its power under section 482, Cr.PC.” (emphasis supplied)

21. Learned counsel for petitioners drew attention of the Court to the conduct of respondent No.2 in filling application u/s. 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court No.1, Kota on

25.04.2024, it means, after registration of FIR as also filing two separate applications, one u/s. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and another u/s. 125 Cr.PC. Learned counsel tried to point out certain contradictory averments made in the applications filed by [2025:RJ-JP:38126] (26 of 28) [CRLMP-10537/2022] respondent No.2 before the Family Court. These averments pertain to financial status of petitioner No.2 and his business avenues. In the opinion of this Court, these applications have been filed by respondent No.2, availing legal remedies available to her in law and even if there may be few averments in respect of developing and flourishing a business by petitioner No.2 at Jodhpur as well, apart from having his parental business at Sumerpur, Pali, on the basis of filing these applications, allegations of cruelty made by her in the FIR impugned, cannot be treated to be malicious, more so same have been found established in the investigation. Similarly, factum of subsequent marriage of petitioner No.3 does not entail by itself to assume that she was not involved in the alleged offences. Indisputably, she was unmarried at the time of marriage of petitioner No.2 and respondent No.2 & registration of FIR, and specific allegations against her to slap respondent No.2 and subjecting her with mental and physical cruelty, have been levelled in the FIR.

22. Further, from the contents of the FIR, the necessary ingredients to constitute offences under Sections 406 and 323 IPC are also made out and during investigation, such offences have been found established against petitioners No. 1, 2, and 3. As per progress report of investigation, though few articles of streedhan of the complainant, have been recovered, yet certain items are yet to be recovered.

23. As far as the allegations against petitioner No.4 are concerned, there are no direct allegations of committing cruelty or making any demand of dowry. Rather, he is in a remote relationship of respondent No. 2 in-laws and has been roped in the [2025:RJ-JP:38126] (27 of 28) [CRLMP-10537/2022] present FIR, merely on the ground that he acted as a mediator in arranging the marriage. The allegations against him are non- specific and vague. Admittedly, petitioner No. 4 resides in his own house at Jodhpur and is well established in his own separate business. Other allegations, in respect of his relations with petitioner No. 1, are not connected with the complainant. Hence, on the basis of the allegations made against petitioner No.4 in the FIR and on its face value, no offence can be said to be prima facie made out against petitioner No. 4. Even in the investigation report dated 11.09.2025, the Police have not found involvement of petitioner No. 4 in the alleged offences under Sections 498-A, 406, and 323 IPC, which have otherwise been held to be proved against petitioners No. 1, 2, and 3.

24. The outcome of the discussion and enunciation made hereinabove, is that the impugned FIR is not liable to be quashed qua petitioners No.1, 2 & 3, though it deserves to be quashed in respect of petitioner No. 4 and this Court passes order as under: Consequently, the instant criminal misc. petition is partly allowed in respect of petitioner No. 4- Subhash Agarwal, only and prayer of quashing of FIR qua petitioner No.1, 2 and 3 is hereby rejected. The impugned FIR No.224/2022, alongwith all consequential proceedings thereof, is quashed qua petitioner No.4. The interim order of protection dated 14.02.2023, comes to an end.

25. It is hereby further observed that investigation in the impugned FIR No.224/2022, against petitioners No. 1, 2, & 3 shall continue and may be concluded earliest, obviously after taking into consideration the WhatsApp chats produced by the [2025:RJ-JP:38126] (28 of 28) [CRLMP-10537/2022] petitioners, and by following the dictum of law enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar [(2014) 8 SCC 273] & Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation [(2022) 10 SCC 51].

26. Stay application and pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. Sachin Sharma/S-184 (SUDESH BANSAL),J