1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and second respondent who argued on behalf of himself and the other respondents also.
2. Delay condoned.
3. Leave granted.
4. The appellant Savita in one of the appeals herein filed a complaint alleging offences punishable under Sections 498- A and 406 IPC against the respondents herein which was registered as FIR No. 33 dated 1.6.2001 by the Mahila Police Station, Bikaner. The said FIR was challenge4 by the respondents herein before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur, which by the impugned order proceeded to quash the FIR holding that the FIR prima facie does not disclose any cognizable offence against any of the respondents herein and allegations taken in their entirety ex facie are vague in nature.
5. The appellant Savita in her complaint had specifically stated that among other things "the husband of the complainant also started to abuse her and beat her and all the remaining accused used derogatory language to the appellant and used to say that her father and mother did not give anything to them". She had further complained that "two years ago on an evening accused Kamlesh, Bhagyawati, Shankuntala, Anamika and Bhanwari Devi gave beating to the appellant, they snatched her hair and tore the clothes and also abused her". She further stated that they had demanded Rs. 5 lakhs as dowry. It is on this factual basis that the complaint in question was filed which was registered by the Mahila Police Station, Bikaner as stated above.
6. The High Court while entertaining the petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure took into consideration certain statements made by the appellant Savita in a divorce proceeding between her and the first respondent and based on such evidence, as if it was sitting in an appeal, proceeded to give a finding that it does not disclose any cognizable offence against any of the respondents herein in a Section 482 petition.
7. We think that this was too premature a stage for the High Court to give such a finding when even the investigation had not started and the said agency had no occasion to find out whether there was material to file a charge-sheet or not.
8. The second respondent relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case of V.M. Shah Vs. State of Maharashtra and another, , wherein this Court while entertaining an appeal against the conviction u/s 633 of the Companies Act had held that a finding given by the civil court is binding on the criminal court. We have no quarrel with the said proposition, but we are of the opinion that such consideration of a finding of the civil court cannot be done by a court entertaining a criminal petition for quashing an FIR wherein an investigation has not even started.
9. The second respondent further contended that subsequently in the divorce proceeding the Court has given a conclusive finding that the allegation made by the appellant Savita is not established, but that is a finding again given by the civil court subsequent to the impugned judgment in this case. Even otherwise as held by us hereinabove, that is a material to be taken note of by the investigating agency or the court before which the charge-sheet is filed. The learned counsel then sought to place reliance on various judgments of this Court like in State of West Bengal and Others Vs. Swapan Kumar Guha and Others, , and Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia and Others Vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and Others, etc. We think on the facts of this case and the stage at which the challenge is made in this case u/s 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, these judgments do not help the respondent in defending the impugned order.
10. For the reasons stated above, we allow these appeals and quash the impugned order of the High Court and direct the Mahila Police Station, Bikaner to proceed with the investigation of the case, FIR No. 33 dated 1.6.2001.
11. The appeals are allowed.
