MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") has been filed by the petitioners for quashing FIR dated 29.5.2005 registered under Crime No. 194/05 and all connected criminal proceedings by police of Police Station- Bhilai Nagar, District Durg, alleging commission of offence under Section 304-B and Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the IPC.

(2.) The relevant and necessary facts giving rise to instant petition are that petitioner No.1- Manoj Kumar Sharma was married to Nandani, daughter of R.P. Sharma on 27.4.1999. While the deceased Nandni Sharma was residing with her husband-petitioner No.1, she died in suspicious circumstance on 20th September, 1999. An information in writing (Annexure P-1) regarding death of Nandani was sent to the Station House Officer of Police Station - Mullana, Ambala Cantt. on that very date i.e. 20th September, 1999 by one P.S. Ghosh, Flying Officer, Security Officer for Commanding Officer of 2207 Squadron Air Force. In the said letter, it was stated that Mrs. Nandani Sharma, wife of petitioner No.1 died unnatural death on 20th September, 1999. One Sunita Verma, wife of Wing Commander - N. N. Verma was informed and when she went to the house of petitioner No.1, he was found crying and saying that his wife hanged herself. Deceased-Nandani was then sent to hospital at Ambala for necessary medical care where she was declared dead. Upon receipt of the information, the police of Police Station - Ambala proceeded to hold an inquiry under Section 174 of the Code. The dead body was sent for postmortem and also for chemical examination in the Forensic Science Laboratory. The father of the deceased namely R. P. Sharma was informed. The details of the inquiry made under Section 174 of the Code were entered in the General Diary by one Balbeer Singh, ASI on 22.9.1999. It was recorded therein that upon receiving information regarding unnatural death, the police went to the place of occurrence and upon inquiry, no offence was found to have been committed. Report of the inquiry made under Section 174 of the Code was forwarded to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ambala, by the Station House Officer on 24th January 2000 stating that Mrs. Nandani died due to hanging and postmortem was conducted and chemical report from F.S.L. was also obtained. The father of the deceased requested that the remains of the body of the deceased be handed over to him for performing last ceremony and it was also stated in the said report that father of the deceased does not want any further action in the matter of death of his daughter - Nandani. On the basis of the said report, the Superintendent of Police, Ambala, recorded on 19.2.2000 that the deceased died on 20th September, 1999 and no cognizable offence was found to have been committed and the case is therefore closed. This report was accepted and endorsed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ambala. The acceptance report has been placed on record as Annexure P- 8. Simultaneously, an inquiry was also conducted by the Indian Air Force Authority and upon completion of inquiry, the inquiry officer submitted final report on 18.2.2000 (Annexure P-9) stating that civil police has completed the investigation under Section 174 of the Code and no foul play is suspected in the case and therefore the case has been closed and case file sent to Dy. Suptt. of Police Narayangarh for disposal. The aforesaid inquiry report, prepared by Squadron Leader and forwarded to the higher authorities, was finally accepted and the case was closed vide Annexure P-10.

(3.) After about 5 years, on the basis of report submitted by Shashi Bhushan, brother of the deceased- Nandani Shamra, the police of Police Station - Bhilai Nagar, District Durg registered a crime under Crime No.194/05 dated 29.5.2005 against the petitioners, registering offences under Section 304-B and 498-A read with Section 34 of the IPC (placed on record as Annexure P-18). The FIR, in substance, recorded that the application was received from brother of the deceased-Nandni and upon inquiry made, it was found that deceased-Nandani was married to petitioner No.1 on 27.4.1999 and ever since the deceased was married, the petitioners did not accord proper treatment and expected car by way of dowry and further that the in-laws of the deceased used to provoke Manoj Sharma, husband of the deceased and on telephone, the deceased used to inform regarding incidents of quarrel. On 20th September, 1999, deceased- Nandani Sharma informed her brother over telephone regarding her quarrel with petitioner No.1 and on that very date, she died in suspicious circumstance. The police found that the deceased was subjected to cruelty in connection with demand of dowry by her husband, father-in- law-Hiralal Sharma, mother-in-law- Hemlata and uncle-in-law Mahaveer Prasad Sharma, resulting in her death in suspicious circumstance within 4 months of her marriage in the house of her husband. In the FIR, it has been alleged that on the basis of some letter received on 7.4.2005, it came to light that the deceased had not committed suicide, but she was murdered by Manoj Sharma and it was given colour of a case of suicide. The petitioner No.1 was arrested on 1st June, 2005 and was produced before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durg, where from he was remanded to judicial custody. The petitioner- Manoj had moved an application for grant of bail which was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, Durg and thereafter, bail application was rejected by the High Court. A writ petition registered as W.P. No.2890/05 was preferred by the petitioners for quashing of FIR under Crime No.194/05 registered by Police Station-Bhilai Nagar, Durg. Vide order dated 25.7.2005 (Annexure P-13), petitioner No.1 was directed to be released on bail and it was further directed that till the writ petition is disposed of, investigation against the writ petitioners may continue but none of the petitioners will be arrested without the leave of the Court. Later on, writ petition was disposed of as withdrawn reserving liberty to the petitioners to question the validity or otherwise of the FIR said to have been filed against the writ petitoenrs before an appropriate forum and further that withdrawal of the writ petition would not come in the way of writ petitioners raising all such contentions which are available to them including the contention raised in the writ petition.