SATPAL SIROHI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.), the petitioner Satpal Sirohi seeks quashing of impugned order dated 9.7.2013 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in Complaint Case No. 23/1 of 2012 titled Satpal Sirohi vs. Smt. Geeta & Ors. whereby the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner was dismissed. The facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner filed a complaint along with an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 302/306/120B/34 IPC.

(2.) The facts as set out by the complainant are that son of the petitioner namely Arun Sirohi got married with respondent No. 2 herein, respondents No. 3 to 7 herein were not happy with the marriage. After about one year of marriage Arun Sirohi started living separately with respondent No. 2 due to consistent pressure. The petitioner has alleged that on 6.7.2011, respondent No. 2 left the company of Arun Sirohi, son of the petitioner when he was ailing under a severe condition for which a complaint was given by his son to SHO, P.S. Bhajanpura, Delhi. It is also alleged that on 14.2.2012 son of the petitioner telephonically informed that his wife called him at her parental home for negotiations in the presence of respondents No. 3 to 7. On the same day at about 11.45 p.m., respondent No. 3 Suresh Chand Sharma informed the petitioner that his son had immolated outside his house and is being shifted to GTB Hospital by PCR Van. On hearing the same, at about 12.30 a.m. the petitioner along with his two sons and one nephew reached at GTB Hospital where his son was in conscious condition. The doctors of GTB Hospital referred his son to Safdarjung Hospital where the son of the petitioner expired on 15.2.2012. The petitioner raised the doubt for burning of his son by respondents No. 2 to 7. The petitioner moved an application to SHO, P.S. Jaffrabad on 16.2.2012 but no action was taken by the police. The complainant also sent various complaints to the higher authorities but no FIR has been registered.

(3.) On the prayer under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi called Action Taken Report (ATR). The police filed the status report. As per the status report, the deceased at the time of incident used to stay at his parental house, nothing has come to notice that the deceased used to talk with his in-laws frequently. Consequently, there is nothing to suggest that in-laws of deceased Arun Sirohi has provoked him to take such an extreme step.