JUDGMENT : The instant petition has been preferred by petitioner for quashing the complaint dated 25.2.2020, FIR No. 9 of 2020, dated 2.3.2020 registered in Women Police Station, Baddi, Police District Baddi, District, Solan, H.P. under Sections 498-A, 406 and 506 of Indian Penal Code and also order dated 11.8.2020 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., summoning the petitioner for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 498-A, 406, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. 2. Petitioner is brother-in-law (Dever) of complainant. Complainant was married to Jitender Pal (brother of petitioner) on 30.11.2016 as per religious rights and customs. It is alleged in the complaint that Jatinder Pal did not properly treat the complainant, but harassed, maltreated and misbehaved with her on one pretext or the other and his entire family compelled the parents of complainant to arrange money to send the petitioner abroad and complainant paid the said amount. As per complaint, on 15.9.2019, family of petitioner gave merciless beatings to the complainant in connivance with each other and thrown her out of the home on 16.9.2019 and since then she is residing in her parental home. Complainant had filed a complaint in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. which was referred to Police Station Baddi/Nalagarh for necessary action vide order dated 27.2.2020, resulting into registration of FIR No. 9 of 2020. 3. After completion of investigation, challan/report under Section 173 Cr.P.C has been presented in the court for trial under Section 498A, 406, 506 and 34 IPC. During investigation statement and three supplementary statements of complainant (Annexures P-4 to P-7) were recorded on 3.3.2020, 8.3.2020, 6.5.2020 and 14.7.2020 respectively. Statements of parents of complainant and other witnesses (Annexures P-8, P-9, P-11, P-12 and P-13) were recorded on 3.3.2020, 8.3.2020, 14.3.2020 and 23.7.2020. Supplementary statement of father of complainant (Annexure P-14) was also recorded on 14.7.2020. 4. On the basis of material placed before the Magistrate, learned Magistrate has issued notice/summon/process against the petitioner along with husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law of complainant, vide order dated 11.8.2020. 5. Supplementary statement of father of complainant (Annexure P-14) was also recorded on 14.7.2020. 4. On the basis of material placed before the Magistrate, learned Magistrate has issued notice/summon/process against the petitioner along with husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law of complainant, vide order dated 11.8.2020. 5. It is case of the petitioner that after doing diploma in electrical, he was granted tourist visa by the Ministry of Interior United Arab Emirates on 23.9.2016, which was valid till 20.2.2017 and petitioner had departed from India on 7.1.2017 and thereafter returned on 4.2.2017 and he was granted employment visa by the Ministry of Interior, United Arab Emirates for the purpose of working as Wiring Electrician Assistant and visa was valid from 5.3.2017 to 3.5.2017. As per petitioner, the visa of the petitioner was extended time to time and he had been issued offer letter dated 2.2.2017 employing him as electrician w.e.f. 15.2.2017 with Aroma International Building Contracting LIC, copy of offer letter is Annexure P-19 and he had left India on 23.3.2017 and come back on 28.2.2018. Thereafter he had departed India on 2.8.2018 and came back on 21.6.2019. Petitioner has placed on record copy of tourist visa, employment visa and resident identity card issued by the Ministry of Arab Emirates as Annexures P-16, P-17 and P-18, respectively. Copy of Passport to substantiate the plea of travels of petitioner leaving India and coming back time to time, have been placed on record as Annexure P-20, having details of extension of visa. 6. It has been claimed on behalf of petitioner that before joining Aroma International Building Contracting LIC, petitioner had been working with P&R Infra Projects Ltd. Consultants and Developers in District Ropar, and in this regard certificate issued by the employer w.e.f. 8.6.2014 to 26.11.2016 has been placed on record as Annexure P-21. 7. It is further case of the petitioner that his marriage was fixed on 24.4.2020 with one Amandeep K. Saini, who is doing job in Canada and she arrived India from Canada on 10.3.2020 for solemnization of marriage with petitioner and marriage was solemnized on 24.4.2020. 7. It is further case of the petitioner that his marriage was fixed on 24.4.2020 with one Amandeep K. Saini, who is doing job in Canada and she arrived India from Canada on 10.3.2020 for solemnization of marriage with petitioner and marriage was solemnized on 24.4.2020. Wife of petitioner (Amandeep Kaur) has been granted Multiple Visa valid till 9.6.2029 and she returned to Canada on 18.7.2020, but the petitioner could not go for registration of FIR, which is nothing but counter blast to the complaints of husband of complainant submitted to Senior Superintendent of Police, Rupnagar as well as Solan on 18.2.2020. Copies of complaints dated 18.2.2020 have been placed on record as Annexures P-32 and P-33. It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that husband of complainant (brother of petitioner) has filed a petition for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, on various grounds on 20.2.2020 in the court of learned District Judge, Rupnagar. It has also been submitted on behalf of petitioner that a similar complaint, like present one, dated 25.2.2020, was submitted by complainant to Senior Superintendent of Police, Ropar, Punjab, which was referred for inquiry and report to Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division, Rupnagar, who vide report dated 27.7.2020, after investigation had concluded that complaint was false. Relevant portion of investigation report has been placed on record as Annexure P-36. 8. It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that petitioner has been implicated in criminal case with a view to spoil his career who is otherwise neither connected nor concerned in any manner with affairs of the complainant with other family members. Further that as the allegation leveled on the petitioner, that for arranging money, enabling him to go abroad, complainant was pressurized by him alongwith other family members, is falsified from the fact that marriage of complainant and her husband was solemnized on 30.11.2016 and at that time there was complete notebandi (demonetization) in the entire Country and there was no occasion for the family of the petitioner to have asked for any kind of money for sending petitioner abroad. It has further been contended that record reveals that petitioner has already gone abroad on his own and was granted employment by the employer and, therefore, for going abroad no amount was required as alleged by the complainant and, therefore, there was no occasion for demanding any money from the complainant so as to sent petitioner abroad. 9. It has been contended that the only allegation against the petitioner is that he alognwith other family members had compelled the parents of complainant to arrange amount for sending petitioner abroad and according to complainant the said amount was arranged and petitioner was sent abroad. Another allegation, leveled against the petitioner is that petitioner along with other family members harassed and maltreated the petitioner and participated in beating her mercilessly on 15.9.2020 and ousting her from the house on 16.3.2020. 10. It is contended on behalf of petitioner that there is more than sufficient material on record to conclude that FIR appears to be only a counterblast to the complaints filed by husband of complainant against complainant and there is no specific allegation against the petitioner except bald allegation that all family members had harassed her and beaten her mercilessly and, therefore, complaint against the petitioner and consequential criminal proceedings initiated against him deserves to be quashed. 11. In support of contention of the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner has put reliance upon State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; State of Karnataka Vs. M. Devendrappa (2002) 3 SCC 89 ; Bhaskar Lal Sharma Vs. Monica (2009) 10 SCC 604 ; Shakson Belthissor Vs. State of Kerala (2009) 14 SCC 466 ; Geeta Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P. (2012) 10 SCC 741 ; Rajiv Thappar Vs. Madan Lal Kapoor (2013) 3 SCC 330 ; Prashant Bharti Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2013 (9) SCC 293 ; Teza Devi @ Triza Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2014) 15 SCC 221 ; Varala Bharath Kumar Vs. State of Telangana (2017) 9 SCC 413 ; Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra (2019) 9 SCC 608 ; Anand Kumar Mohatta Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2019) 11 SCC 706, Cr. Revision No. 196 of 2018, titled Vinay Kumar Vs. State of H.P.; Cr.MMO No. 287 of 2020, titled Harman Preet Vss. State of H.P.; 2018 SCC OnLine SC 2419 Himachal Pradesh Cricket Association Vs. State of Maharashtra (2019) 9 SCC 608 ; Anand Kumar Mohatta Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2019) 11 SCC 706, Cr. Revision No. 196 of 2018, titled Vinay Kumar Vs. State of H.P.; Cr.MMO No. 287 of 2020, titled Harman Preet Vss. State of H.P.; 2018 SCC OnLine SC 2419 Himachal Pradesh Cricket Association Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1258-1259 of 2018 and judgment of the Supreme Court, dated 13.8,.2021, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 787 of 2021, titled Kaptan Singh Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and others. 12. Respondent-State has opposed the petition on the ground that Investigating Agency after carrying out investigation has found involvement of the petitioner in commission of offence and accordingly challan has been presented in against him in the court, wherein the Magistrate has already taken cognizance by issuing summons, suspecting commission of offence by the petitioner, on the basis of material placed on record. 13. Respondent No. 2-Clomplainant has also filed separate reply and has opposed the petition by stating that present petitioner has been filed after concealing material facts from the Court by saying that petitioner is living in Foreign Country and thus had no role in domestic violence against respondent No. 2. It has been submitted that very act and conduct of the petitioner with replying respondent was not tolerable since when the petitioner intended to go abroad and he was involved in the commission of offence along with whole family by putting abnormal pressure upon the complainant in terms of physical torture as well as emotional torture compelling her to bring money and, therefore, there was active role of the petitioner in commission of offence. It has been alleged in the reply that when petitioner had to go abroad, Rs.5,00,000/- were given by complainant and the said demand continued to be increased and when complainant did not fulfill the demand, she was mercilessly beaten, misbehaved and harassed by all family members, whereas despite an educated women, complainant had been working relentlessly to save her relationship. It has been contended that learned Magistrate has issued summons after application of complete judicial mind and, therefore, there was no scope of interference in the impugned order. 14. It has been contended that learned Magistrate has issued summons after application of complete judicial mind and, therefore, there was no scope of interference in the impugned order. 14. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has referred (2009) 11 SCC 766; (2019) 9 SCC 607 and 2014 (15) SSC 221 in support of his contention, contending that there is sufficient material to proceed against the petitioner in the trial and, therefore, by referring provisions of Section 498A Cr.P.C., prayer for dismissal of present petition has been made. 15. Legal position with regard to parameters to be taken into consideration by the trial Court at the time of framing of charge is well settled. As reiterated by the Apex Court in Sonu Gupta Vs. Deepak Gupta and others, (2015) 3 SCC 424 , (paras 9 and 10) an accused may seek discharge, if he is able to show that materials are absolutely insufficient for framing charges against him. However, the sufficiency of material for the purpose of conviction is not the requirement at this stage and a prayer for discharge can be allowed only if the Court finds that materials are wholly insufficient for the purpose of trial and it is also a settled exposition of law that even when there are materials indicating strong suspicion against an accused, the court will be justified in rejecting the prayer for discharging and for granting an opportunity to the prosecution to bring on record the entire evidence in accordance with law, so that case of both sides may be considered properly on conclusion of trial. 16. It is also settled law of land, as observed in Satpal Vs. State of Haryana, reported in (2018) 6 SCC 610 and Ramesh Maruti Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1994 SC 28 , an FIR is not to be read as an encyclopedia of the prosecution case requiring every minute detail of the occurrence to be mentioned therein. 17. In present complaint/FIR lodged at the instance of complainant is detailed narration of the offence committed by the accused person. Thereafter, statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has been recorded and later on about three supplementary statements of the complainant have been recorded. 17. In present complaint/FIR lodged at the instance of complainant is detailed narration of the offence committed by the accused person. Thereafter, statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has been recorded and later on about three supplementary statements of the complainant have been recorded. Statement of parents of complainant and other witnesses have also been recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Complainant has narrated that her husband is an habitual drunker and his behavior became cruel and he used to misbehave and maltreat the complainant on one pretext or the other, whereas complainant, a simpleton and well educated lady studied up to M. Sc Pharmaceutical Chemistry was doing a job in private company but she was compelled to leave the job and was not to allow to appear in her examination of IELTS. Complainant has further alleged that respondents were demanding dowry and money from the complainant and her parents and they compelled her parents to arrange the amount and for failure on part of her parents she was given merciless beating many times. No specific role of petitioner has been referred either in the complaint or in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. or in supplementary statements of complainant. No such allegation is found mentioned in statement of any witness recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., including parents of complainant. 18. One specific allegation against the petitioner, if any, surfaced from the record is that money was required for his visa to go abroad. Whereas, from the material placed on record, it is evident that petitioner was granted tourist visa by the Ministry of United Arab Emirates on 23.9.2016, whereas marriage of the complainant was solemnized on 30.11.2016 and further that according to complainant she was beaten for not arranging money on 15.9.2019, whereas it is evident from the material on record that petitioner had departed India on 7.1.2017 and had returned on 4.2.2017 and thereafter he departed on 23.3.2017 and came back on 28.2.2018 and his resident identity card issued by Ministry of United Arab Emirates was valid up to 6.5.2021 and his visa was extended by authorities of United Arab Emirates from 7.5.2017 to 6.5.2019 and he left India on 2.8.2018 and came back on 21.6.2019 on annual leave. His visa was further extended from 7.5.2019 to 6.5.2021. His visa was further extended from 7.5.2019 to 6.5.2021. It has also been established on record that petitioner was married on 24.4.2020 with a girl doing job in Canada, who left for Canada on 18.7.2020, whereas petitioner for registration of FIR in present case is not able to leave India. 19. In view of material placed on record with respect to petitioner, related to his passport, visa and his visits to abroad, it appears that he has been taken in to fold of the complaint only being member of matrimonial family of complainant. Role of other family members in commission of offence alleged in the FIR, is yet to be evaluated by the trial court on merits of the evidence which is not to be appreciated at this stage. For material placed with respect to petitioner on record, it appears that though it would have sufficient to suspect that petitioner may have committed an offence as alleged in the FIR, however, for material placed on record along with this petition, it is apparent that there is no case made out for framing of charges against him. However, this finding is not precedent for considering case of other family members as no material has been placed before me to take a similar view with respect to other accused persons/family members. For material placed before me no prudent person can ever reach at a conclusion that there is ground for continuing the proceedings against the petitioner for allegation made against him in the complaint/challan. Cause of commission of offence by the petitioner stands demolished by the material placed on record especially passport and visa of the petitioner. 20. Taking into consideration the case law cited by the parties and facts and circumstances of the case, I find that complainant dated 25.2.2020 and FIR No. 9 of 2020, dated 2.3.2020 and criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner subsequent thereto, are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, petition is allowed and complaint dated 25.2.2020, FIR No. 9 of 2020, dated 2.3.2020 and Criminal Proceedings initiated in pursuance to the aforesaid FIR No. 9 of 2020 against the petitioner are quashed and it shall not affect the trial against other co-accused.