JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition has been filed seeking the quashing of F.I.R. dated 13.01.2019 registered as Case Crime No.0015 of 2019, under Sections -498A, 304-B and Section of Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S.-Ganga Nagar, District-Meerut and also seeking the direction to S.H.O. concerned not to arrest the petitioner in pursuance of aforesaid F.I.R. dated 13.01.2019. 2. If we go by the version, as has been given in the F.I.R., it appears to be a case in which the ill-fated deceased lady was married with one Gaurav on 8th March, 2018 but she could not survive even for a year after marriage and met with an unnatural death under abnormal circumstances on 13.01.2019. According to the allegations made by the first informant, the deceased was got killed by the accused persons which included the petitioner father-in-law, her husband and also the other in-laws who are co-accused of the case. It has been alleged in the F.I.R. that though in the marriage the first informant had spent more than his capacity but the accused-petitioner who is father-in-law, the co-accused husband and other in-laws were dissatisfied with the gifts given and were displeased for that reason as they wanted a Scorpio vehicle and not the Maruti car which was given to them in the marriage. In the wake of their dissatisfaction they started mounting pressure upon the deceased so that she should force her father to meet out the demand and manage the Scorpio vehicle. The deceased was taunted and jeered and was tortured mentally and physically both. The deceased had told and conveyed the aforesaid facts to her mother, to her brother and to all other members of the family. It further transpires that the unfortunate father of the deceased with the help of some relatives tried to convince and persuade the members of the matrimonial home about his incapacity to meet out the demand telling them that he had already spent in the marriage more than his purse but all attempts to make good sense prevail upon them failed and did not yield any result. The cruel treatment continued unabated. It further transpires from the recital of the F.I.R. that about two months before her death the deceased had called her father and other members of the first informant's family telephonically and it was told by her that some poisonous substance was administered to her through tea. The cruel treatment continued unabated. It further transpires from the recital of the F.I.R. that about two months before her death the deceased had called her father and other members of the first informant's family telephonically and it was told by her that some poisonous substance was administered to her through tea. When the people from the parental side reached there, it was found that as a result of the same the deceased had fallen badly sick. The members of the matrimonial house denied the allegations and pleaded innocence saying that something might have gone inadvertently by mistake in the tea. Apologies were tendered and assurances were given by the in-laws that the deceased would be well taken care of and shall not be subjected to any ill-treatment. According to first informant's version given in the F.I.R. the deceased had expressed her apprehensions even at that point of time telling him about the rapacious nature of the accused persons and also telling him about the hideous plans or intentions of the accused to have another marriage of petitioner's son after eliminating her. But the first informant got bluffed by the assurance of accused and did not report the matter to the police. On 13.01.2019 the tragic information reached the first informant that his daughter has been killed by the accused persons which included the name of petitioner, who is father-in-law and the names of other co-accused persons which included her husband and other in-laws. After receiving this information when the first informant and other members of his family and relatives reached the matrimonial home of his daughter, they found the dead body lying in a bathroom, who according to the first informant's version had been murdered for reasons of dowry demand. The post-mortem report of the dead body appears to have been done on 13.01.2019 and the cause or the manner of death has been opined by the doctor to be asphyxia as a result of strangulation caused by ligature. Certain other injuries in the form of abrasion and abraded contusion were also found. Viscera was also preserved. 3. Heard petitioners' counsel and learned A.G.A. 4. Entire record has been perused. 5. The only submission pressed before the Court by petitioner's counsel is that the petitioner is a Police Constable and he was not present on spot on the day of occurrence. Viscera was also preserved. 3. Heard petitioners' counsel and learned A.G.A. 4. Entire record has been perused. 5. The only submission pressed before the Court by petitioner's counsel is that the petitioner is a Police Constable and he was not present on spot on the day of occurrence. The plea of alibi has been raised on his behalf and according to the counsel the petitioner was performing his official duty at the place of his posting far away from the place of occurrence. Reliance in this regard has been placed on certain papers annexed along with the petition, which according to the counsel show certain entries indicating petitioner's presence at the place of his posting elsewhere, therefore, no offence can be made out against him and the F.I.R. of the case should be quashed. Certain other submissions assailing the truthfulness and the credibility of the prosecution version have also been raised. 6. Learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the submissions raised by the petitioner's counsel and it has been submitted on behalf of State that the allegations as have been made in the F.I.R. clearly make out several offences against the petitioner and other co-accused which include the offences of demanding the dowry, committing cruelty upon the deceased and eventually committing the murder or at any rate committing the offence of causing the dowry death of the deceased within a year of her marriage in a gruesome manner. It has also been emphasized by learned A.G.A. that at this stage when the investigation is already afoot it is not advisable to enter into a roving inquiry about the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations made in the F.I.R. and the only thing to be seen at this stage is whether the contents of the F.I.R., if taken to be true, are constituting cognizable offences or not. If they do, there is scarcely any occasion to put a spanner in the independent course of investigation which must be allowed to have its full course, do its job and ascertain the truth. Learned A.G.A. has also tried to point out that the petitioner has taken some very incongruous pleas in the petition which fly in the face of the findings of autopsy report of the deceased. Learned A.G.A. has also tried to point out that the petitioner has taken some very incongruous pleas in the petition which fly in the face of the findings of autopsy report of the deceased. Attention was drawn on paragraph nos.14, 15 and 16 of the petition in which the line of defence adopted on behalf of petitioner is that on being annoyed with her in-laws and with the behaviour of her husband, she consumed poison as a result of which she died. The submission of learned A.G.A. is that the findings of the autopsy report and the opinion of the doctor show the cause of death to be asphyxia as a result of strangulation by a ligature. Contention is that though viscera has been preserved in order to confirm the presence of poison but regardless of the fact whether she consumed poison or not, the strangulation by a ligature is a conclusively incriminating circumstance against the accused persons which affirms that she has met with homicidal death and at this stage there is absolutely no explanation whatsoever regarding this extremely incriminating finding noted in the post-mortem report by the doctor. If she had consumed the poison in an attempt to commit suicide, where was the occasion for anybody to strangulate her to death? Learned A.G.A. has further sought to argue that a conjoint reading of paragraph nos.14 and 16 of the petition would show that it has been admitted on behalf of petitioner that the deceased was not happy with the marriage because of the other family members and on the day of occurrence she was very annoyed with her in-laws and with the behaviour of her husband. According to learned A.G.A. the contents of paragraph nos.14, 15 and 16 would go a long way to strongly indicate the state of her unhappiness in which she was living there and would confirm the allegation of ill-treatment to which she was subjected in her matrimonial home. It has also been contended that raising the plea of suicide is nothing but an additional attempt on behalf of accused to conceal the crime and to mislead and bluff the authorities to reach at wrong conclusions while homicidal death by strangulation has already been confirmed by the findings of the post-mortem report. It has also been contended that raising the plea of suicide is nothing but an additional attempt on behalf of accused to conceal the crime and to mislead and bluff the authorities to reach at wrong conclusions while homicidal death by strangulation has already been confirmed by the findings of the post-mortem report. Learned A.G.A. has also focused upon the other injuries found on the body of the deceased which according to him demonstratively show that she was subjected to violence before she died. Learned A.G.A. has also tried to debunk the plea of alibi submitting that the contents of the petition do not make it clear as to what was the date of the order regarding petitioner's posting and what were the actual days when he performed the official functions on the place of his posting and which were the dates of his leave or absence from there. The defence plea according to learned A.G.A. is suffering from the vice of vagueness and does not exclude the possibility of petitioner's presence on the place of occurrence on the day of incident. According to learned A.G.A. the grounds of petition with regard to plea of alibi and the documents submitted in support of it are inconclusive in nature. There is no authentic certification about his presence on the place of posting by any such higher authority which may be worth placing reliance. He has further sought to argue that as the petitioner is in the department of Police itself and therefore even managing such kind of false defence alibi plea with the help of his fellowmen can also not be ruled out and at any rate this aspect would call for a thorough investigation. It was also lastly contended by learned A.G.A. that irrespective of petitioner's presence or absence on spot the recital of the contents of the F.I.R. would still make out several cognizable offences against him. 7. The law regarding sufficiency of grounds which may justify quashing of F.I.R. in a given case is well settled. The court has to eschew itself from embarking upon a roving enquiry into the last details of the case. It is also not advisable to adjudge whether the case shall ultimately end in submission of charge sheet and then eventually in conviction or not. The court has to eschew itself from embarking upon a roving enquiry into the last details of the case. It is also not advisable to adjudge whether the case shall ultimately end in submission of charge sheet and then eventually in conviction or not. Only a prima facie satisfaction of the court about the existence of sufficient ingredients constituting the offence is required in order to see whether the F.I.R. requires to be investigated or deserves quashing. The ambit of investigation into the alleged offence is an independent area of operation and does not call for interference in the same except in rarest of rare cases. The view taken in the case of Satyapal vs. State of U.P. and others, (2000) CriLJ 569 which was further confirmed by another Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P. and others, (2006) 56 AllCriC 433 makes the position of law in this regard clear and this Court does not find it advisable to whittle down the power or scope of investigation in the given case. The operational liberty to collect sufficient material, if there exists any, cannot be scuttled prematurely by any uncalled for overstepping of the Court. It has to be an extremely discreet exercise. 8. The Apex Court decisions given in the case of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, (1960) AIR SC 866 and in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, (1992) SCC(Cri) 426 have also recognized certain categories by way of illustration which may justify the quashing of a complaint or charge sheet and the same may also be good grounds to quash the F.I.R. Some of them are akin to the illustrative examples given in the case of Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi, (1976) 3 SCC 736 . The cases where the allegations made against the accused in the F.I.R. or the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer do not constitute any offence or where the allegations are absurd or extremely improbable or impossible to believe or where prosecution is legally barred or where criminal proceeding is malicious and malafide instituted only with ulterior motive or grudge and vengeance alone, may be illustratively the fit cases for the High Court in which the F.I.R. or the criminal proceedings may be quashed. If a particular case falls in some such categories as recognized by the Apex Court in Bhajan Lal's case, it may justify the interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent power as provided in Code of Criminal Procedure or in exercise of its powers vested by the Constitution of India. 9. Illumined by the case law referred to herein above, this Court has adverted to the entire record of the case. 10. The submissions made by the petitioner's learned counsel call for determination on pure questions of fact which may be adequately discerned only through proper investigation. This Court does not deem it proper, and therefore cannot be persuaded to have a pre-trial before the actual trial begins or where the investigating agency should not be given fullest opportunity to make proper inquiry and reach at the just conclusions in the matter. This Court does not deem it proper to suffocate or trammel the ambit and scope of independent investigation into the case. A more elaborate discussion of various facts and circumstances, as they emerge from the allegations made against the accused, is being purposely avoided by the Court for the reason, lest the same might cause any prejudice to either side during investigation or trial. But it shall suffice to observe that the perusal of the record makes out prima facie cognizable offences at this stage and there appear to be sufficient ground for investigation in the case. Death of the deceased took place within a year of the marriage. Undisputedly the death took place under abnormal circumstances and it was not a natural death. The findings of the post-mortem report show strangulation which by itself is a homicidal act. Even if for the sake of argument we entertain the defence plea about the commission of suicide it would still be an unnatural death under abnormal circumstances which would bring home the offence of committing dowry death, if other ingredients of the offences are found substantiated which prima facie appear to be apparent on the face of record in this case. Even otherwise the statutory presumption of having abetted the commission of suicide is also very much there staring in the face of accused persons by virtue of Section-113A of Indian Evidence Act. Even otherwise the statutory presumption of having abetted the commission of suicide is also very much there staring in the face of accused persons by virtue of Section-113A of Indian Evidence Act. This is not to speak about the lesser offences punishable under the Dowry Prohibition Act and the offences of committing cruelty upon the deceased regarding both of which there are categorical allegations made in the F.I.R. and which has nothing to do with the plea of alibi. To screen and ascertain the truthfulness of the defence plea of alibi, as has been raised on behalf of petitioner, is within the exclusive domain of investigation which must be given full opportunity to independently investigate the matter. Raising the plea of alibi has nothing uncommon or unusual about it. Sometimes they may be proved successfully during trial just as the accused may end up quite unsuccessful in proving it. The false pleas of alibi may even get disproved and falsified during the course of investigation or trial. While sitting in this jurisdiction this Court does not find it justified or advisable to enter into a roving inquiry into the same. Certainly this Court does not see any good reason to hold that if someone pleads alibi it should act as an estoppel against free and full investigation and should be deemed to be a good ground to quash the F.I.R. Whether all the accused shall be found guilty of committing similar offences or they be found guilty of committing different offences must be ascertained, found and substantiated by investigation and it is a matter which cannot be predicted at this stage. For the present the allegations as they appear in the F.I.R. are doubtlessly making out several congnizable offences. The conduct of raising incompatible and incongruous defence pleas which run counter to the findings of post-mortem report certainly does not do any credit to the accused-petitioner. With utmost restraint this is the least which can be said at this stage about the pleadings of the petition. We therefore do not find any justification to quash the F.I.R. or the proceedings against the accused arising out of it as the case does not fall in any of the categories recognized by the Apex Court which may justify their quashing. 11. We therefore do not find any justification to quash the F.I.R. or the proceedings against the accused arising out of it as the case does not fall in any of the categories recognized by the Apex Court which may justify their quashing. 11. The prayer for quashing the F.I.R. is refused as we do not see any breach of constitutional provisions or any abuse of the process of law also. 12. The petition in view of the aforesaid stands dismissed.