K.L.JAI SINGH Vs. YASHPAL ARORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the orders dated 10.05.2012 and 24.01.2008 in case FIR No.509/1996 registered under Sections 304B/498A IPC at PS Kalkaji whereby the respondent No.1 was discharged.

(2.) I have heard the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and the respondent No.1 in person and have examined the record. The respondent No.1 was married to Pramila (since deceased) on 30.08.1994. He was transferred to Orissa in May, 1996 and they both started residing there. During summer vacations, the deceased stayed at her parental home, from 15.05.1996 to 11.06.1996 and thereafter, went back to Talchar, Orissa. On 24.06.1996, the respondent informed the deceased's parents that she was admitted in ICU in a hospital at Talchar. On 25.06.1996, the petitioner went there and on the advice of the local doctors, the deceased was brought to Delhi for treatment. She was admitted at Batra Hospital where she expired on 07.07.1996. The petitioner lodged complaint on 27.07.1996. The respondent filed petition for quashing of the FIR which was rejected by this Court vide order dated 09.10.2001.

(3.) Learned Senior counsel urged that the discharge order of the Trial Court cannot be sustained as there was enough material to proceed against the respondent for committing offence punishable under Section 498A IPC. The complainant leveled specific allegations against the respondent for treating the deceased with cruelty on account of dowry demands. Veena Jaisingh, mother of the deceased in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. disclosed that the respondent had demanded money on various occasions. The counsel relied upon the statements of Hanuman Prashad, Sri Narain, R.J.Goel and Parmeshwari Devi to emphasize that the deceased was subjected to harassment. He contended that at the stage of consideration of charge, the Court was not expected to make roving enquiries. The Court was required to shift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case was made out. For this, the Court was to evaluate the material and documents on record to find out if the facts emerging there from taken at their face value were prima facie sufficient to proceed against the accused. Reliance was placed on 'Sajjan Kumar vs. CBI, 2010 9 SCC 368.