ORDER : PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J. 1. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been preferred for quashing FIR No. 269/2016 registered at Police Station, Mahila Thana, Sri. Ganganagar for the offences under Sections 406, 498-A, 354, 377, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. 2. The allegation was that the marriage in this case was solemnized between the complainant and the present petitioner No. 1 on 26.01.2015 and an amount of Rs. 4 crores was spent and also Rs. 85,00,000/- was given. It is also alleged that Rs. 1 crore in cash were also given. Further allegation is that the Stridhan and the documents of the property in question have been in possession of the present petitioners. The engagement between the parties had happened on 23.01.2014 and in that one Mahindra XUV 500 vehicle was given and the father of the complainant spent Rs. 45,00,000/-. The accused/petitioner No. 1 is a MBBS Doctor. 3. It was also alleged by the complainant that she was insulted in the house of petitioner No. 1 and his family members. It was also alleged that the complainant was given beating and Rs. 5 crores were sought as dowry to establish a hospital at Chandigarh. It was further alleged that the complainant was given a groom and a soap as gift for the marriage, so as to conduct the domestic works. The brother of the complainant was threatened that if he does not give the amount of Rs. 5 crores, he and his sister, that is the present complainant shall be killed. The amount of Rs. 5 crores was repeatedly sought, and on 07.04.2015, Rs. 2,00,000/- were paid to petitioner No. 3. Petitioners No. 1, 2 & 3 made a phone call to the father of the complainant to arrange a house for petitioner No. 1 in Chandigarh, or he may commit suicide. With the help of maternal uncle of the complainant, who was living in London, the house was provided in Mamta Enclave Jikarpur. Thereafter, petitioners No. 2 and 3 under intoxicated liquor asked the complainant to give Rs. 5 crores and when she refused, she was abused and beaten. 4. Further on 10.07.2016, Rs. 70,000/- were sent and petitioners No. 1, 2 & 3 quarreled with the maternal aunt of the complainant and abused her for not arranging the house at Chandigarh and Rs. 5 crores. 5 crores and when she refused, she was abused and beaten. 4. Further on 10.07.2016, Rs. 70,000/- were sent and petitioners No. 1, 2 & 3 quarreled with the maternal aunt of the complainant and abused her for not arranging the house at Chandigarh and Rs. 5 crores. It was further alleged that on 08.09.2015, the complainant came to Sri. Ganganagar and her father was making efforts for arranging the house. All the petitioners came to Panchkosi, and then, they went to Chandigarh and started living in a rented house in Sector-20, Chandigarh. The petitioners' behaviour was cruel towards the complainant and petitioner No. 2 was coming into her room without knocking, causing embarrassment to the complainant, and which even extended to molestation on one occasion. The complainant also alleged that petitioner No. 1 indulged in unnatural sex with her. Thereafter, the FIR was registered. The status report of the investigation was also submitted. 5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that originally the dispute was arising out of a 9 kila land, which was originally gifted to the daughter-in-law, that is the present complainant. Furthermore, the land was mortgaged to a Bank, and the allegation of the complainant is pertaining to the same, as her signatures and her thumb impression are alleged to have been forged for mortgaging the property belonging to the complainant. The statement of the complainant has also been recorded, which, as per learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, reflects that the dispute originally is regarding the land in question. 6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners also submitted that the investigation is shoddy, as a dead person, namely, Prithvi Raj, whose Death Certificate is on record, has been shown to have given the statement after his death. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners further submitted that respondent No. 2 created fake and forged documents to make a new Passport, for which an FIR was lodged against her. 7. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners also shown the document of the Income Tax Department seeking clarification from the complainant regarding the amount in question. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners also submitted that the allegations levelled do not match the income tax details of the complainant or her family members. 8. 7. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners also shown the document of the Income Tax Department seeking clarification from the complainant regarding the amount in question. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners also submitted that the allegations levelled do not match the income tax details of the complainant or her family members. 8. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that the father of the complainant was an old car dealer and the two small amounts stated were in lieu of one car and tractor, which belonged to petitioner No. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner also stated that the offence under Section 377 IPC was highly improbable and the allegations were not true. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the proof of the expenditure of Rs. 5 crores in connection with the marriage and the allegation of seeking the said amount as dowry cannot be substantiated by the complainant and thus, the same are bald and vague allegations. 9. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners further stated that the FSL in respect of the mortgage of the land in question, that is 9 kila land, was not sought by the investigators, so as to ascertain whether the land in question was rightly or wrongly mortgaged or not. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners also stated that a detailed representation has been given, which as not been considered by the official respondent. 10. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has further stated that the ingredients of the offence in relation to entrustment, demand and refusal are not made out, and thus, the commission of the offence is not made out, on the face of it. 11. Learned Public Prosecutor has stated that a detailed factual report, which is taken on record, clearly reflects that almost every aspect, which has been raised on behalf of the petitioners, has been dealt with. Learned Public Prosecutor however, states that the offences under Sections 406, 498-A, 354, 323, 420 and 120-B IPC are prima facie made out, and for the offence under Section 377 IPC, further investigation is going on. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent have stated that on the face of the FIR, the offences are constituted and it will not be appropriate for this Court to go into the details and level of proof in the investigation. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent have stated that on the face of the FIR, the offences are constituted and it will not be appropriate for this Court to go into the details and level of proof in the investigation. Learned counsel for the respondent have further stated the document shown by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners could be utilized by the petitioners during the trial proceedings, but at this infant stage of the criminal proceedings, only parameter that call for the indulgence would be if the offence is not made out and if the offence alleged was highly improbable. 13. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and in light of the parameters for grant of indulgence under Section 482 Cr.P.C, and on a careful perusal of the record as well as the documents and the status report submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor, this Court is of the opinion that the investigation so far carried out may have certain loopholes, but the loopholes in the investigation cannot become a ground for interference under the constrained jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C 14. So far as quashing of the FIR at this stage when the offences are prima facie made out, on the face of the FIR, is concerned and in light of the investigation report, this Court is satisfied that the investigation has been conducted at length, and each and every aspect of the allegations, which have been levelled in the FIR, have been almost touched. Moreover, this Court is very cautious of the fact that the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C is a very constrained jurisdiction and any interference for quashing the FIR would not be appropriate. 15. The allegations, rightly or wrongly, are there on record and the offences under Sections 406, 498-A, 354, 323, 420 and 120-B IPC are prima facie made out, as the status report, which seems to be very genuinely, is reflecting the status of the investigation. 16. In light of the aforesaid discussion, no case for interference is made out. 17. Consequently, the present misc. petition is dismissed. The stay application also stands disposed of.