1. The petitioner (in WPCr No. 823/2021) has prayed for the following reliefs:

“A. A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of appropriate nature do issue calling the entire records pertaining to the case from the respondent No. 3 police.

B. A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of appropriate nature do issue to quash the FIR No. 912/2020 registered at respondent No. 2 police station as it is against the law and also the allegation made does not constitute the offences.

C. Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of case.”

2. The petitioner (in Cr.M.P. No. 245/2022) has prayed for quashing of the FIR bearing Crime No. 912/2020 registered at Police Station Kotwali, Raigarh, and all the proceedings in connection with the said crime.

3. Since both the petitions i.e. WPCr No. 823/2021 and Cr.M.P. No. 245/2022 arise out of same crime number i.e. 912/2020 registered at Police Station, Kotwali, Raigarh, they are being considered and decided by this common order.

4. The facts, as projected by the petitioners, is that an FIR bearing Crime No. 912/2020 was lodged by the complainant/respondent-Ankit Agrawal at Police Station Kotwali, Raigarh, on 21.11.2020 at 21:30 hours against the petitioner-Shweta Vishwakarma @ Shweta Agrawal. It was stated in the FIR that the sister of the complainant/respondent-Ankit Agrawal, namely Shristi Agrawal was married to the petitioner-Mohit Agrawal, resident of Mumbai. As there was some dispute between the couple, her sister was residing at Raigarh. Few days before, the complainant found the profile of Mohit Agrawal in a matrimonial site namely ‘Apki Matrimony’. Her sister tried to enquired as to how when her husband is married with her, he could have uploaded his profile on the matrimonial site for which she asked the petitioner-Shweta Vishwakarma regarding the details. Shweta Vishwakarma demanded Rs. 5000/- as registration fee for providing the details. The said payment was made but later on, the details of Mohit Agrawal was not provided to the complainant. Later on, the petitioner-Shweta Vishwakarma returned back the amount through cheque dated 29.09.2020 but did not gave the contact number or details of Mohit Agrawal. In nutshell, the FIR was lodged alleging that the petitioner-Shweta Vishwakarma is running a matrimonial site and her shop is situated at 102, First Floor, Bhagat Plaza, Pandri, Raipur and is committing forgery by putting the profile of married persons and is trying to ruin the lives of unmarried girls which falls under the offence under Section 420 IPC.

5. Mr. Raza Ali, learned counsel for the petitioners {in WPCr No. 823/2021} submits that the "Aapki Matrimony" used to work for providing the details of the Bride and the Grooms on their website and thereby assist the customers to get the same for them or for their relatives. The customers have to take the membership in this regard and have to supply their details on the basis of their self declaration and their requirement for bride or groom like age caste, location, occupation, religion and others and after getting the membership they have to make their profile by their own on the website and their profile would be shown in the website. It is pertinent to mention here that the customers or person who have taken the membership and prepared the profile, can only be edited by them if any changes arrived, as it requires the Id and password known to the customers. ‘Aapki Matrimony’ on each membership of Rs. 5000/- can only provide the 50 contacts as per their requirements submitted at the time of membership and it is upon the person to verify the same by meeting to the other party whether the information filled by them are true or not and if both the parties are agreed then they may perform the marriage, there is no role of the petitioner or the Firm "Aapki Matrimony" in the said procedure. In the present case the respondent No.4/complainant has concealed the fact that her sister is married woman and has applied for her marriage for which the respondent No. 4 has only deposited the amount of Rs. 5000/- for membership but has not provided the details of her sister like age, caste, religion, sex, occupation and also not provided the requirement like whether they are requiring the government servant or businessman and others, and also not made the profile. 'Aapki Matrimony’ never makes any promise to provide the details of particular profile, it can only promise to provide the 50 contacts details of profile as per their requirement at every membership of Rs. 5000/-. The respondent No. 4 thereafter has sent the legal notice on 19.09.2020 immediately after 3 days and made false averments therein. The petitioner has sent the reply to the said notice on dated 21.09 2020 and denied the averments in the notice and specifically stated that the petitioner has never ever promised to provide the details of the Mohit Agrawal and has not defrauded any one. The petitioner has also stated in the reply that the person namely Mohit Agrawal has uploaded his profile in the Aapki Matrimony website way back and his profile is not active profile and the details of his marital status ie. unmarried has been filled by his own declaration and it cannot be edited by the petitioner or the firm ‘Aapki Matrimony’ as the password and Id is with that person namely Mohit Agrawal, the petitioner has also returned the amount of Rs 5000/- deposited by the complainant/respondent no. 4 by way cheque bearing no. 622377 of State Bank of India dated 21.09.2020 this fact has also been admitted by the respondent no. 4 in his complaint. From the notice which has been sent by the respondent no. 4 and the reply of the petitioner would and also the FIR reveal that the sister of the respondent no, 4 and Mohit Agrawal are husband and wife and there is dispute between them and respondent no. 4 for her married daughter applied for membership in Aapki Matrimony for her marriage which itself is fraud on the part of the complainant. The petitioner has made the complaint before the respondent No. 3 Police Station, Pandari at District Raipur for which the respondent no. 3 has conducted the preliminary enquiry and after recording the primary statements and enquiry, has rejected the complaint of the respondent no. 4 and has proceeded under section 155 of Cr.P.C. The respondent No 4, instead of availing the remedy under section 156(3) or Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has concealed the said fact and has made second complaint at respondent No. 2 Police Station at Raigarh, where also the respondent No. 2 police has not registered the same and kept the complaint pending. Thereafter the complainant has preferred the WPCR bearing no. 569/2020 before the Hon'ble High Court, and during the pendency of the writ petition, the complainant has made false statement before the respondent No. 2 Police Station that the Hon'ble High Court has initiated the action for which the respondent No. 2 police has without any enquiry registered the impugned FIR against the petitioner, whereas no such order has been passed by this Hon'ble Court. From the bare perusal of the Annexure P-4 it would be clear to this Hon'ble Court the respondent No. 4 has not only defrauded the present petitioner but has also fraudulently concealed the fact of his rejection of complaint. The remedy which the complainant would have is to file the complaint case before the competent court at Raipur as the police has already rejected the complaint and proceeded under section 155 of Cr.PC, as no offences is made out but the complainant concealing all the fact has fraudulently made the second complaint before another Police Station, which itself not tenable in the eye of law. The allegation so made in the FIR does not disclose the fact that the complainant is the victim and also not disclose who is the victim from the act of the petitioner, as the amount so deposited by the complainant has been returned immediately within a few days to the complainant/respondent No. 4 for not providing the details of her sister and further the prosecution or the complainant has not shown that whose marriage has been done with already married person, lacuna of not showing the victim no offences can be made of cheating and this fact have also been discussed by the Additional Session Judge while granting Anticipatory bail to the petitioner, and therefore registration of FIR against the petitioner is not sustainable in the eye of law. The complainant had also made an objection in the bail application of the petitioner and also made the application for cancellation of bail of the petitioner not only before the court below but also before the Hon'ble High Court and the same has been dismissed and the pleading which they have taken in the said application for cancellation of bail is that the petitioner is pretending herself to be Saraswati Vishwakarma or Shweta Agrawal and the same has been refused to interfere by the Courts of law. Further the pleading which has been raised by the respondent No. 4 also reflects that they have misguided the respondent No. 2 Police Station for registration of FIR by pleading that after the issuance of notice by the Hon'ble High Court, the said FIR has been registered, whereas no such order has been passed by the Hon'ble High Court, which shows that the respondent No. 4 has made false statements before the respondent No. 2 Police Station for the registration of FIR, which is against the law and requires to be quashed at threshold. The allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence so collected by the police are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against him and the said aspect has already been settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Sundar Babu and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2009) 14 SCC 244 [LQ/SC/2009/394 ;] .

6. On the other hand, Ms. Madhunisha Singh, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State/respondent No. 1 to 3 {in WPCr No. 823/2021} submits that the present petition is liable to be dismissed for being devoid of merit and substance as alternative efficacious remedy is already available to the petitioners and it is a pre-mature stage to challenge the registration of FIR as the investigation is under progress and on completion of investigation, the police will submit a report accordingly. The investigation is under process. It is submitted that the material collected against the petitioner, it does not appear that the petitioners are totally innocent. So far as allegation of malicious prosecution is concerned, the petitioners failed to show that there is a sheer mala-fide or arbitrariness on the actions of the authorities. Looking to the allegations leveled by the complainant against the petitioner it cannot be safely said that no offence has been committed by them. The State authorities are duty bound to investigate the matter where prima-facie commission of cognizable offence is disclosed in the complaint and that would be done only after registering the FIR. Since the authorities are acting within the four corners of law, the allegation of malicious prosecution or malafide exercise of power is not at all arose. The law is well settled regarding the quashing of the F.I.R. that the same power should be exercised very sparingly and in the exceptional circumstances only. The investigating agency may be allowed to carry on the necessary investigations. It is respectfully submitted that the quashing of the F.I.R. would paralyze the investigating agency and the real culprits of the offence in question shall be unnecessarily benefited. As per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Lalita Kumari v. State of Uttar Pradesh" reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1, [LQ/SC/2013/1244] it is obligatory on the part of the Police Authorities to registration FIR and without registering the FIR, investigation cannot be done. Thus, merely on disclosure of cognizable offence the first and foremost thing which Police authority has to do is register FIR and no inquiry is permissible beforehand. Further, in the judgment of M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure v. The State of Maharashtra, 2021 SCC Online 315, the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down guidelines as to the maintainability of FIR and maintainability of petition under Section 482 of CrPC and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and regarding issue pertaining to quashment of FIR. It was held by the Hon'ble Court that the First Information Report is not an encyclopedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the Police in progress, the Court should not go into the merits of the allegations of the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/ FIR does not deserves to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. After investigation, if the investigating Officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report / summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure. Further it has been stated that while examining the FIR / Complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the the allegations made in the FIR/ complaint. Quashing of a complaint/ FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule. Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the Police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of the activities and one ought not to tread over the other sphere. Similarly, in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 684, the Hon'ble Apex Court has illustratively given certain guideline pertaining to the extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as to when it can be exercised. The petitioner in the case in hand has failed to demonstrate that how this case falls under the given seven guidelines. The instant petition thus is baseless, frivolous and is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

7. Mr. Hari Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4/complainant submits that the marriage of sister of answering respondent namely Shristi Agrawal was performed at Raigarh with the accused Mohit Agrawal son of Mahendra Agrawal, who is resident of Mumbai. In the month of September, 2020, the answering respondent came to know that, in a marriage brokerage institution namely 'Aapki Matrimony' which is being run by the accused Shweta, details of brother-in-law of answering respondent i.e. aforesaid Mohit Agrawal has been shown as unmarried and invitation were being called from interested candidates for marriage proposal. To confirm/investigate the aforesaid fact about marriage proposal of his brother-in- law, the answering respondent contacted accused Shweta Vishwakarma on her phone number 82690-00623, wherein at that time, she represented herself to be Shweta Agrawal and on 16.09.2020, the answering respondent also deposited/online transferred a sum of Rs 5,000/- from his Google Pay account towards the initial registration charges in the bank account of accused Shweta Vishwakarma. Thereafter on 17.09.2020, the accused Shweta Vishwakarma shared the photo and basic details of said Mohit Agrawal and to the utter shock and surprise of the petitioner, the aforesaid photo and basic details were of his brother-in-law Mohit Agrawal, showing him to be never married. The complainant contacted and confronted the accused Shweta Vishwakarm as to who provided her the details of his brother- in-law for the purpose of marriage proposal, so as to know that accused Shweta Vishwakarma on her own are providing misleading information about already married candidates or it is his brother-in- law who has posted his proposal for a marriage behind the back of his sister and during the subsistence of their existing marriage. Since no proper reply was given to the answering. respondent, the answering respondent was constrained to issue a legal notice to the accused Shweta Vishwakarma in this regard. To which, the accused Shweta Vishwakarma replied and while admitting the fact that she had obtained a sum of Rs 5,000/- from the answering respondent, in order to hid their modus operandi and to bury the matter, she returned the said amount vide cheque. Vide letter dated 12.10.2020, the answering respondent filed a complaint before the jurisdictional police station i.e. Respondent No.2 herein Station House Officer, Police Station -Kotwali, Raigarh, bringing into their knowledge all the aforesaid fact and to take action against the culprits. On the same date, vide letter dated 12.10.2020, the answering respondent also sent the same compliant to Superintendent of Police, Raipur, and D.G.P., Police Headquarter, Raipur. For a considerable period of time when no action was taken on the complaint of the petitioner and/or no communication in this regard was made to the petitioner, on 05.11.2020, the petitioner filed a writ petition bearing WPCR No. 569/2020 before this Hon'ble Court seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to act appropriately upon the complaint dated 12.10.2020. Further, all the aforesaid facts were specifically mentioned in the writ petition filed before this Hon'ble Court. During the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, it was informed to the answering respondent that the jurisdictional police station i.e. Respondent No.2 registered an FIR pursuant to the aforesaid complaint and due to the aforesaid fact, the aforesaid writ petition was dismissed as infructuous vide order dated 24.11.2020. The jurisdictional police station i.e. respondent No.2 herein started its investigation in the matter and during the course of investigation, added offence under Section 66 of the 1.T. Act. against the accused persons. The complainant was never informed about by the office of respondent No.3 or by the office of Superintendent of Police, Raipur that pursuant to the aforesaid complaint dated 12.10.2020, any enquiry has been conducted by the police station Mowa, Raipur, much less about any proceedings under Section 155 of Cr.P.C. Pursuant to the registration of instant FIR, the police authorities of Respondent No. 2, has initiated its investigation and in addition to offence under section 420 of 1.P.C. have added offence punishable under section 66 of the Information and Technology Act. Further, a bare perusal of the allegation made in the FIR would show that a cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner and the relief as claimed cannot be granted to the petitioner in this writ petition in view of the judgment of the Apex Court passed in the matter of M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra). In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the Instant crime in question is not a fit case for this Hon'ble Court to nip it at its bud Invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr PC. or under Article 226 of Constitution of India. He relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2018) 3 SCC 104, [LQ/SC/2018/6] XYZ vs State of Gujarat reported in (2019) 10 SCC 337, [LQ/SC/2019/1651] the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that when there are serious triable allegations in complaint, it would be improper for the Hon'ble High Courts to quash the FIR in exercise of inherent powers under section 482 of the Code and/or Article 226 of the Constitution of India. A bare perusal of the reply filed by the Respondent/State Authorities would show that during the course of investigation, the Police authorities have found that the accused Shweta Vishwakarma is running a forge marriage bureau and has cheated the answering respondent/complainant and has also committed fraud showing the co-accused Mohit Agrawal as unmarried in the online web portal. Applying the aforesaid dictum in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, it would be clear to this Hon'ble Court that the statement of the victim/witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. have been recorded, which on the face of it, constitutes offence under sections 420 of 1PC and Section 66 of IT Act. Further, the materials collected during investigation clearly discloses commission of cognizable offence by the petitioner and there are serious triable allegations/issues in matter. It is settled in law that at the stage of quashment of FIR, the Courts should not go into the merits of the allegation and the police authorities must be permitted to complete the investigation and the entire criminal prosecution cannot be stalled or quashed at the threshold merely on the stand/statement of the Petitioners that in the aforesaid act, there is no victim who has been defrauded or the matter relates to a commercial transaction. The grounds raised by the petitioner in the instant petition are pure questions of facts and essentially the defence of the accused person, which cannot be taken into consideration at this stage by and before this Hon'ble Court and only could be taken during the course of trial. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

8. Mr. Priyank Rathi, learned counsel for the petitioners {in Cr.M.P. No. 245/2022} submits that the petitioner No. 1 is Mohit Agrawal. Petitioner No. 2, 3 and 4 are mother, brother and father of petitioner No. 1. After registration of the FIR bearing Crime No. 912/2020 at Police Station, Kotwali, Raigarh, wherein the accused was named as Shweta Vishwakarma @ Shweta Agrawal but there is no mention of the petitioners-Mohit Agrawal and his family. The petitioner No. 1 received a notice from the Head Constable, P.S. Kotwali, Raigarh under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. wherein he was asked certain questions which have been duly replied to specifically stating that he had never given any biodata in any matrimonial site for his marriage nor has he given any money to any matrimonial agency. Memorandum statement of the accused-Shweta Vishwakarma cannot be relied solely to hold the petitioners guilty of any offence.

The petitioner have neither cheated nor tried to cheat any one in any manner and the petitioners herein are unnecessarily being harassed for no fault of theirs.

9. In response, the learned State counsel as well as the counsel for the complainant rely on the return filed and submit that there is ample evidence available on record to show that the petitioners are guilty of commission of offence under Section 420 of the IPC and Section 66 of the I.T. Act. When the petitioner No. 1 Mohit Agrawal is already married, he has tried to remarry by floating his profile in the matrimonial site which and the same is a serious offence.

10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto.

11. Pursuant to the order dated 10.02.2022 passed by this Court in Cr.M.P. No. 245/2022, the further proceedings of the impugned FIR with regard to the petitioners therein were directed to remain stayed till the next date of hearing. Thereafter, the said interim order has continued till date.

12. In nutshell, the entire story revolves around the profile created on the matrimonial site ‘Apki Matrimony’ which is being run by the petitioner-Shweta Vishwakarma @ Saraswati Vishwakarma. It is an admitted fact that petitioner No. 1 Mohit Agrawal and sister of the complainant Ankit Agrawal, namely Shristi Agrawal. It is also an admitted position that Mohit Agrawal and Shristi Agrawal are not having cordial relationship and both are living separately. Since Saraswati Vishwakarma @ Shweta Vishwkarma is running a matrimonial site, when the complainant came across the profile of Mohit Agrawal who happens to be his Jija, he has tried to enquire into the details for which the complainant was asked to deposit Rs. 5000/- as registration fee and only thereafter he could have gained the details. However, it appears that later on the said transaction could not materialize and the petitioner-Saraswati Vishwakarma has returned the money to the complainant and later denied to give the details of Mohit Agrawal. When the complainant has received his money back, then there remains no element of any cheating or deceit as on account of any act of the petitioner-Saraswati Vishwakarma, no damage or harm has been caused to the complainant.

13. The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge-sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases and Courts should not ordinarily interfere with the investigations of cognizable offences. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint even if 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, the FIR or the charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of powers under Article 226 or inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

14. The FIR registered against the petitioners in both the petitioners is under Section 420 of the IPC. The same reads as under:

“420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.—Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

15. Cheating is defined in Section 415 of the IPC which is as follows:

“415. Cheating.—Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to “cheat”.

16. In Ram Jas v. State of Uttar Pradesh {(1970) 2 SCC 740 [LQ/SC/1970/357] }, the Supreme Court has observed at paragraph 3 as under:

"3…...Cheating is defined in section 415, I.P.C which is as follows "Whoever, by deceiving- any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces, the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat".

The ingredients required to constitute the offence of cheating are-

(i) there should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving him;

(ii) (a) The person so deceived should be induced to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property; or

(b) the person so deceived should be intentionally induced to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived; and

(iii) In cases covered by (ii) (b), the act or omission should be one which causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to the person induced in body, mind, reputation or property.”

17. In the well celebrated judgment reported in AIR 1992 SC 605 State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, the Apex Court held that those guidelines should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases. Guidelines are as follows:

“(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 to do not rima 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 156(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 improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can every 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 concerned Act (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 concerned Act, 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."

18. The case on hand falls squarely in categories (1) and (5) set out in Bhajan Lal (supra).

19. From the pleadings made in WPCr No. 823/2021, it is revealed that the complainant has concealed the fact that her sister is married woman and has applied for her marriage for which the complainant had only deposited the amount of Rs. 5000/- for membership. It is also not clear as to when the petitioner-Mohit Agrawalh ad uploaded his profile in Apki Matrimony website and further that his profile has not been active. The petitioner-Saraswati @ Shweta Vishwakarma has also returned the amount of Rs 5000/- deposited by the complainant by way cheque bearing no. 622377 of State Bank of India dated 21.09.2020 this fact has also been admitted by the respondent no. 4 in his complaint. Sister of the complainant and Mohit Agrawal are husband and wife and admittedly, there is dispute between them.

20. In a recent decision of the Supreme Court in Mahmood Ali & Others v. State of U.P. & Others, {2023 LawSuit (SC) 767}, it was observed as under:

“12. At this stage, we would like to observe something important. Whenever an accused comes before the Court invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution 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 for wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. We say so because once the complainant decides to proceed against the accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance, etc., then he would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the necessary pleadings. The complainant would ensure that the averments made in the FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be just 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. In frivolous or vexatious 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 try to read in between the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation. Take for instance the case on hand. Multiple FIRs have been registered over a period of time. It is in the background of such circumstances the registration of multiple FIRs assumes importance, thereby attracting the issue of wreaking vengeance out of private or personal grudge as alleged.

13. In State of Andhra Pradesh v. Golconda Linga Swamy, (2004) 6 SCC 522, [LQ/SC/2004/780] a two-Judge Bench of this Court elaborated on the types of materials the High Court can assess to quash an FIR. The Court drew a fine distinction between consideration of materials that were tendered as evidence and appreciation of such evidence. Only such material that manifestly fails to prove the accusation in the FIR can be considered for quashing an FIR. The Court held:-

"5. ...Authority of the court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the court has power to prevent such abuse. It would be an abuse of the process of the court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation or continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto.

6. In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 [LQ/SC/1960/96] : 1960 Cri LJ 1239, this Court summarised some categories of cases where inherent power can and should be exercised to quash the proceedings : (AIR p. 869, para 6)

(i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance e.g. want of sanction;

(ii) where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at its face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged;

(iii) where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge.

7. In dealing with the last category, it is important to bear in mind the distinction between a case where there is no legal evidence or where there is evidence which is clearly inconsistent with the accusations made, and a case where there is legal evidence which, on appreciation, may or may not support the accusations. When exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial Judge. Judicial process, no doubt should not be an instrument of oppression, or, needless harassment. Court should be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process, lest it would be an instrument in the hands of a private complainant to unleash vendetta to harass any person needlessly. At the same time the section is not an instrument handed over to an accused to short-circuit a prosecution and bring about its sudden death…."

(Emphasis supplied)”

21. From perusal of the FIR in question, we do not find that either the complainant or her sister has been cheated or any of the ingredients of cheating as above exists so as to continue with criminal prosecution on the basis of the said FIR registered against the petitioners herein.

22. Applying the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases (supra) and in view of the discussions hereinabove, FIR No. 912/2020 registered at Police Station, Kotwali, Raigarh for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC and Section 66 of the I.T Act, is quashed.

23. Resultantly, both these petitions are allowed.