JUDGMENT Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava, J. - Petitioners are calling in question the impugned FIR vide Crime No.437 of 201921 registered at Police Station Kotwali, Morena (MP) by which, offences have been registered against petitioners along with other co-accused under Sections 498A, 506, 34 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. Facts leading to filing of present petition, in short, are that on 12/04/2019, complainant respondent No.2 lodged a report at Police Station Kotwali, Morena stating therein that on 08/04/2016 her marriage was solemnized with one Pradip Singh Sikarwar, resident of Gopalpura, Morena as per Hindu rites and customs. At the time of marriage, cash of Rs.7.5 lac along with household articles, worth Rs.2,50,000/-; and clothes, worth Rs.50,000/- were given by her father. For one to two months of the marriage, her in-laws kept her living in peace and then first of all, her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law used to torture her and their behaviour remains changed and they started taunting on her and even did not provide food to her properly. They were telling her to bring AC, Car and Rs.10 lac as dowry and when she objected to it, they use to ''marpeet'' with her. Her sister-in-law and brother in law (Nanand and Nanandoi) both usually to visit her in-laws house and induced her husband to torture her in regard to bringing the aforesaid dowry. On 30/04/2018, her husband, mother-in-law, sister-in-law (herein petitioner no.2) committed ''marpeet'' with her and tried to turn out of house by saying that, if she fails to bring the car and money, they should not keep her in house and they would kill her. This fact was narrated by the complainant to her father by phone and called him. Thereafter, she went along with her father and she started living at Bhopal in her parents house. Her parents and relatives tried to convince her in-laws family, but same could not get succeeded. On the basis of allegation of demand of dowry as well as cruelty, the impugned FIR has been lodged against the petitioners and other co-accused for offences as mentioned in para 1 of this order. 3. Her parents and relatives tried to convince her in-laws family, but same could not get succeeded. On the basis of allegation of demand of dowry as well as cruelty, the impugned FIR has been lodged against the petitioners and other co-accused for offences as mentioned in para 1 of this order. 3. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are brother-in-law and sister-in-law (Nanandoi and Nanand) of the complainant and their marriage was solemnized at Gormi, Bhind on 29/11/2008 and thereafter, they are residing at Gwalior along with their minor child aged around 8 years. Petitioner No.1 is an Assistant Teacher in Education Department, Gormi, Bhind and he usually to travel and back to place at Gwalior. It is further submitted that marriage of complainant with the brother of petitioner No.2 was solemnized on 18/04/2016 but in the impugned FIR, it has been wrongly mentioned as 08/04/2016 by the complainant which creates a doubt on the allegation. The husband of the complainant filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights before Family Court Morena. The father of the complainant is also working as CISF at Nasik. Various applications were filed before police authorities of Nasik, Morena and Bhopal, but no steps were taken by police authorities in the matter. Only, on the basis of omnibus and vague allegations, petitioners have been falsely implicated on the ground of close relative of husband of complainant. It is further contended that the tendency of implicating husband and all his relatives is also not uncommon and even after conclusion of trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. In support of contention, the counsel for the petitioners has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Preeti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand AIR 2010 SC 3363 . It is further submitted that after filing of application under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act by the husband of complainant, impugned FIR has been lodged by complainant with an ulterior motive and same is an afterthought, therefore, the same deserves to be quashed in the light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana & Others. vs. Ch. Bhajanlal & Others 1990 SCR Supl.(3) 259. vs. Ch. Bhajanlal & Others 1990 SCR Supl.(3) 259. It is further contended that unless and until there are specific allegations against the near, dear or distant relatives of the husband of the complainant, the relatives should not be compelled to go through the ordeal of trial. In support of his contention, the counsel for the petitioners has relied on the order dated 13/03/2019 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Smt. Somly Gupta and Anr. vs. State of MP and Anr. [ MCRC 25326 of 2018]. It is further contended that the relatives of husband of complainant/victim should not roped in on the basis of omnibus allegation unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made. In support of contention, the counsel for the petitioners has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of K Subharao vs. State of Telangana, AIR 2018 SC 4009 , Kansraj vs. State of Punjab & Others, (2000) 5 SCC 207 and Kailash Chandra Agrawal & Another vs. State of UP & Others, (2014) 16 SCC 551 . 5. Per contra, counsel for the State as well as complainant supported the impugned FIR and submitted that the FIR discloses that the matter has to be investigated by police authority and at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against petitioners. There are specific allegations against petitioners who usually used to visit the in-laws house of complainant and during stay in the in-laws house of complainant, they usually induced the husband of complainant to torture the complainant in regard to demand of dowry. After leaving the in-laws house by complainant along with her minor child on 30/04/2018, her husband has filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act on 03/01/2019. The petitioners are not distant relatives of husband of complainant and their active participation along with other in-laws cannot be ruled out. Under these circumstances, the entire matter is only at a premature stage and the investigation has not proceeded with except some preliminary efforts taken from the date of registration of FIR. The petitioners are not distant relatives of husband of complainant and their active participation along with other in-laws cannot be ruled out. Under these circumstances, the entire matter is only at a premature stage and the investigation has not proceeded with except some preliminary efforts taken from the date of registration of FIR. The evidence has to be gathered after a thorough investigation and placed before the Court on the basis of which alone, the Court can come to a conclusion one way or the other on the plea of mala fide or on the plea of afterthought. If allegations are bereft of truth and made maliciously, investigation will say so. At this stage, even if there are only allegations but no evidence, the Court cannot anticipate the result of investigation and render a finding on the question of mala fide or on the question of afterthought on the materials, at present available. Therefore, it cannot be said that complaint should be thrown overboard on the mere unsubstantiated plea of mala fide or plea of afterthought. No good ground is made out for quashment of impugned FIR. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of present petition. 6. Heard rival contentions of both the parties and perused the record as well as documents available on record. 7. Having heard learned counsel for parties and on perusal of record, it is noticed that marriage between the complainant and the brother of petitioner No.2 is not in dispute. Petitioners are real relatives of husband of complainant. Impugned FIR as well as document reflects that not only petitioners who are brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the complainant have been implicated but other in-laws have also been implicated in the matter. So far as living of petitioners separately is concerned, it is settled principle of law that cruelty or harassment in regard to demand of dowry may be mental or physical in nature and it is a question of fact which must depend on the evidence of the parties in trial. From perusal of impugned FIR and materials collected by police, it appears that there is specific allegation against petitioners who usually used to visit in-laws house of complainant and during stay in the in laws house of the complainant, they usually induced the husband of complainant to torture her for demand of dowry. From perusal of impugned FIR and materials collected by police, it appears that there is specific allegation against petitioners who usually used to visit in-laws house of complainant and during stay in the in laws house of the complainant, they usually induced the husband of complainant to torture her for demand of dowry. Whether petitioners have committed aforesaid offence or not, this factual aspect cannot be evaluated and appreciated during proceedings under Section 482 of CrPC. Section 482 is prefaced with an overriding provision and the statute saves inherent power of High Court as a superior Court to make such orders, as are necessary to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers and it only recognizes and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court. Where allegations made in FIR/complaint even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, prima facie constitutes an offence or make out an offence against accused, no ground is made out for quashment of same. 8. I also gives a note of caution to the effect that power of quashing of criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases and the Court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to reliability or genuineness or otherwise of allegations made in the FIR or complaint and that extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whim or caprice. 9. As discussed above, the powers possessed by High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of power requires great caution in its exercise. The Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court, being the highest Court, should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing criminal proceedings at any stage. [See Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary [ (1992) 4 SCC 305 ]. 10. It would not be proper for the High Court to analyze the case of complainant in the light of all probabilities in order to determine whether a conviction would be sustainable and on such premises, arrive at a conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed. It would be erroneous to assess the material before it and conclude that the complaint/ proceedings cannot be proceeded with. When an information is lodged at police station and an offence is registered, then mala fide of informant or complainant would be of secondary importance. It is the material collected during investigation and evidence led in the Court which decides the fate of accused. Allegations of mala fide against informant or complainant are of no consequence and cannot, by themselves, be the basis for quashing criminal proceedings.[See Dhanalakshmi v. R. Prasanna Kumar, State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma, Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill, State of Kerala v. O.C. Kuttan, State of U.P. v. O.P. Sharma, Rashmi Kumar v. Mahesh Kumar Bhada, Satvinder Kaur v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi.]. 11. Reverting to the present matter, the allegations made in FIR or the complaint, in my considered opinion, do clearly constitute a cognizable offence justifying registration of case and an investigation thereon and this case does not fall under any one of categories of cases formulated above calling for exercise of extraordinary or inherent powers of High Court to quash the impugned FIR. It is settled principle of law that the evidence produced by accused in defence can be looked into by Court below and not at this stage. Further, it is trite law that the High Court cannot embark upon the appreciation of evidence while considering petition filed under Section 482 of CrPC for quashing the criminal proceedings. It is clear from that if prima facie a case is made out disclosing the ingredients of offence alleged against accused, then Court cannot quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint. It is clear from that if prima facie a case is made out disclosing the ingredients of offence alleged against accused, then Court cannot quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint. Thus, if allegations made in F.I.R. are considered in its entirety, this Court is of the considered opinion that allegations made in F.I.R or complaint against petitioners do make out a prima facie case. Accordingly, no case is made out for quashment of impugned FIR registered at Police Station Kotwali, Morena. 12. Petition lacks merits and is liable to be dismissed. Dismissed accordingly.