HARISH KAPOOR AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS have filed this petition under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of the order dated 9.8.2008 whereby charges were ordered to be framed against them. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioner No. 1 Harish Kapoor is the father -in -law of deceased Renu. Petitioner No. 2 Anuradha Kapoor is the divorced sister -in -law of deceased Renu. Deceased Renu had died in the house of her parents. As per the FIR, Parveen Kapoor had administered poison to his wife and child in connivance with the petitioners on account of non fulfillment of dowry demand. Renu and Parveen were running an academy. Renu was earning about Rs. 35,000/ - to Rs. 40,000/ - per month. Hence, there was no occasion for the petitioners to have demanded Rs. 20,000/ - or Rs. 50,000/ - from the deceased. After the registration of the FIR, Parveen had committed suicide and had left a suicide note levelling allegations against his father -in -law and others.

(2.) LEARNED State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the petition.

(3.) IN the present case, admittedly, deceased had consumed Limca in the house of her parents where she had come to attend a Jagrata. So far as the petitioners are concerned, they were not present at the time of occurrence. Admittedly Parveen and Renu were running an academy and were earning good salary. Admittedly, Parveen and Renu were having joint accounts and had made a lot of joint investments. Further, a perusal of the FIR reveals that the same has been lodged on the basis of suspicion as the complainant had stated that he had full confidence that his son -in -law Parveen, in connivance with the petitioners, had given some poisonous substance to his daughter Renu and grand -daughter Gayatri. After the registration of the FIR in question, Parveen has committed suicide and a criminal case has been registered against the complainant party in this regard. A perusal of the FIR does not lead to the inference that the petitioners had committed the offence in question. Moreover, now the parties have amicably settled their differences. In the present case, the son of the petitioner No. 1 has committed suicide. Daughter of the complainant has died due to consumption of some poisonous substance. Since in the present case, the main accused Parveen Kumar has already died, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners, who appear to have been involved in this case merely on the basis of suspicion, would be nothing but an abuse of process of law. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, no prima facie case could be said to have been made out against the petitioners to frame charges against them. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 9.8.2008 whereby the charges were framed against the petitioners is quashed. Consequently, petitioners stand discharged in FIR No. 366 of 25.9.2007, under Section 302, 498 -A, registered at Police Station City Faridkot.