1. The accused-appellant not having succeeded in convincing the High Court that the criminal proceeding under Sections 498-A, 323 IPC and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act instituted against him ought to be quashed has approached this Court by way of this appeal.

2. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

3. What would required to be taken notice for the purpose of adjudication of the issue raised is the fact that the complainant, who is the wife of the brother of the accused-appellant, had instituted an earlier complaint on 12.07.2005 on virtually the same allegations. In the said complaint though there is a bald reference to one brother of the husband who is alleged to have tortured and intimidated the complainant, the said person has not been named. The present accused-appellant had also not been named as an accused in the said complaint. Thereafter on 27.08.2005 the FIR out of which these proceedings have arisen was lodged impleading the accused-appellant as an accused. A reading of the aforesaid FIR would go to show that in substance the allegations made in the FIR are similar to those contained in the earlier complaint dated 12.07.2005 except for an incident that is alleged to have occurred on 27.08.2005.

4. It is the appellant’s case that on 27.08.2005 he had left India. In support of the said claim he had filed before the High court his passport and immigration details which would go to establish the said fact. The High Court brushed aside the same by saying that the claim raised has to be decided on the basis of evidence which has to be laid in the course of the trial.

5. Ordinarily and in the normal course, the High Court when approached for quashing of a criminal proceeding will not appreciate the defence of the accused; neither would it consider the veracity of the document(s) on which the accused relies. However an exception has been carved out by this Court in Yin Cheng Hsiung Vs. Essem Chemical Industries 2011(15) SCC 207; State of Haryana & Ors. Vs Bhajan Lal & Ors. 1992 Supp.(1) SC 335 and Harshendra Kumar D. Vs. Rebatilata Koley Etc.(2011) 3 SCC 351 [LQ/SC/1976/344] to the effect that in an appropriate case where the document relied upon is a public document or where veracity thereof is not disputed by the complainant, the same can be considered.

6. In the present case we have looked into the passport documents and immigration papers which have been brought on record before this Court by the accused-appellant. The said papers do indicate that on the date in question i.e. 27.08.2005 the accused-appellant was not in India. At no point of time either before the High Court or before this Court any dispute has been raised with regard to the said fact. The complainant had not made the appellant a party in the earlier complaint. In the subsequent FIR the grievance of the complainant is in respect of the incident alleged to have been taken place on 27.08.2005. When it is not in dispute that on the said date i.e. 27.08.2005 the accused appellant was not in India, we are of the view that the document(s) evidencing the said fact which are public documents can and should be looked into. Looking into the passport papers and the immigration records, we find that the prosecution, if allowed to stand, would be a futile exercise and that the present was an appropriate case where the High Court ought to have exercised its power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. We accordingly set aside the order of the High Court and quash the impugned proceeding pending in the Court of SubDivisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna City, Khajekala arising from PS Case No.153/05 against the accused-appellant. Appeal is consequently allowed.