K. S. Gupta ( 1 ) PETITIONERS have jointly filed this petition for quashing FIR No. 332/98 under Sections 406,498-A, Indian Penal Code dated 28th May, 1998, PS Shalimar Bagh lodged by respondent No. 5. Petition is being contested by respondents 2 to 4, the police authorities by filing joint reply and by respondent No. 5 - wife by filing a separate reply. ( 2 ) SUBMISSION advanced by Mr. T. N. Saxena appearing for the petitioners was two fold - (i) that the allegations made in said FIR No. 332/98 do not prima facie make out a case under Sections 406,498, Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and (ii) that the Delhi Police has no territorial jurisdiction to investigate into that FIR. ( 3 ) FOR appreciating the said submission, reference to the allegations made in said FIR No. 332/98 is necessary. It is, inter alia, alleged in the FIR (copy at page 21 of the paper book) that marriage between Keshtra Pal, petitioner No. I and Sushila Devi, respondent No. 5 was solemnised on 17th February, 1991 and immediately after marriage respondent No. 5 s mother-in-law, father-in-law, elder brother of petitioner No. 1, his wife and petitioner No. I started tormenting for bringing lesser dowry and misbehaving with her. Whenever she went to matrimonial home all of them pressed her to bringcolour TV and scooter etc. otherwise she will have to face dire consequenc es. Her parents were unable to meet that demand. For that reason she made a complaint on 30th March, 1995 to Crime Against Women Cell, PS Ashok Vihar. Cell had called petitioner No. 1 and got the matter compromised. On the assurance of petitioner No. 1 to treat her nicely she again went to Lucknow on 24th May, 1995 with him. Rajesh, nephew, Poonam and Anju, nieces of petitioner No. I used to beat her up and torture after petitioner No. 1 left for his office. When she made complaint to petitioner No. 1 he roughed her up. Her parents-in-law also did not behave well with her. Thereafter she lived for some days with the sister and brother-in-law of her husband-Bhiku Prasad. Inder Pal, elder brother of petitioner No. I took her to Kaunch where she stayed for four months. In Kaunch petitioner No. I used to compel her for divorce but she did not agree. Her parents-in-law also did not behave well with her. Thereafter she lived for some days with the sister and brother-in-law of her husband-Bhiku Prasad. Inder Pal, elder brother of petitioner No. I took her to Kaunch where she stayed for four months. In Kaunch petitioner No. I used to compel her for divorce but she did not agree. She came back to her in-laws house and from there she came alongwith her father after lodging a report at PS Bindki that she was not taking anything with her. It is further stated that just six months back petitioner No. 1 came to House No. B. K-1-23b, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi, where she has been living with her sister and threatened that unless colour TV, Fridge and Rs. 50,000. 00 cash are not given he will not keep and divorce her. Petitioner No. 1 is in Government service in Lucknow and is staying in his own house and has refused to keep her with him and necessary action may be initiated against the petitioners. ( 4 ) IN the reply/counter affidavit it is alleged by respondent No. 5 that she has been residing in Delhi since long alongwith her brother Shalok Kumar and the demand for colour TV, scooter and Rs. 50,000. 00 in cash was made at Delhi. She has emphatically denied that except for living for short spells in Delhi with her sister and brother-in-law she has nothing to do with Delhi as alleged. Alongwith the reply respondent No. 5 has filed number of documents including the photostat copies of the ration card and the identity card issued by the Election Petition of India. Ration card which was issued on 27th October, 1994, notices that respondent No. 5 alongwith her brother Shalok Kumar was residing in B-J (West), Arya Samaj Mandir, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi. In the identity card issued by Election Commission of India on 29th March, 1996, the address of respondent No. 5 is noted as that of Arya Samaj Mandir, Block (BJ) West, Shalimar Bagh, West Delhi. Both these documents prima facie go to show that much before the lodging of FIR in question the respondent No. 5 has been staying in Delhi. Both these documents prima facie go to show that much before the lodging of FIR in question the respondent No. 5 has been staying in Delhi. ( 5 ) PARA No. 9 of the decision in Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi and Others, AIR 1999 SC 1216 =h (1999) SLT 523=ii (1999) CCR 4 (SC) which has bearing on the issue at hand reads thus : "it is not necessary that a complainant should verbatim reproduce in the body of his complaint all the ingredients of the offence he is alleging. Nor is it necessary that the complainant should state in so many words that the intention of the accused was dishonest or fraudulent. Splitting up of the definition into different components of the offence to make a meticulous scrutiny, whether all the ingredients have been precisely spelled out in the complaint, is not the need at this stage. If factual foundation for the offence has been laid in the complaint the Court should not hasten to quash criminal proceedings during investigation stage merely on the premise that one or two ingredients have not been stated with details. For quashing an HR (a step which is permitted only in extremely rare cases) the information in the complaint must be so bereft of even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the offence. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 AIR SCW 237, this Court laid down the premise on which the FIR can be quashed in rare cases. The following observations made in the aforesaid decision are a sound reminder (para 109 of AIR) : "we also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the Court will not be justified in embarking upon an equiry as to the reliability or genuiness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whim or caprice. " ( 6 ) NEEDLESS to repeat that in the FIR which is sought to be quashed it is also alleged that respondent No. 5-wife left her in-laws house alongwith her father after lodging a report at PS Bindki that they were not taking anything with them; that thereafter petitioner No. 1 came to House No. B-K-1/23b, Shalimar Bagh where she was staying and threatened that unless colour TV, Fridge and Rs. 50,000. 00 were not given he will not keep her with him and give divorce. These averments have been supported in the reply/counter affidavit filed by respondent No. 5. Obviously, factual foundation has been laid in the FIR in regard to the offences under which it has been registered. That being so, there is not merit in either of the two submissions REFERRED TO to above advanced on behalf of the petitioners. Investigation in the FIR is in progress. Taking note of the ratio in Rajesh Bajaj s case (supra) FIR in question cannot be legally quashed and the petition thus deserves to be dismissed. ( 7 ) CONSEQUENTLY, the petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.