SANDEEP Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been preferred under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C.') seeking the quashing of FIR No.746 dtd. 4/11/2018, registered under Ss. 306, 120-B IPC, at Police Station Meham, District Rohtak and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom qua the petitioner.

(2.) One Phool Kumar submitted a complaint to the police alleging that he had one son Ramesh and one daughter Sheela. The marriage of Sheela was solemnized earlier and from the said wedlock, she had one daughter. The husband of Sheela, however, expired 08 years prior to the submission of the complaint after which Sheela alongwith her daughter was living at her parental house. Ramesh, son of the complainant, was married to one Jyoti. After the marriage, the couple started residing at Kharkhoda where Ramesh had earlier purchased a plot and had subsequently, after marriage, constructed a house. Jyoti, her mother Shyamo, her father Dalbir and her maternal uncles Chaand and Jogender started pressurizing Ramesh and made him sell his house at Kharkhoda and retained the sale consideration with them. Thereafter, Ramesh and Jyoti started living in a rented accommodation at Meham. However, frequent disputes used to arise between them with regard to the sale proceeds of the house at Kharkhoda. Disputes also used to arise between Ramesh, his in-laws, maternal uncles of his wife and her brothers namely Vinod and Sumit. Jyoti then started pressurizing Ramesh to send Sheela back to her in-laws house and on refusal of Ramesh to do so, a false case was registered against them alleging that they had tried to kill Jyoti by administring poison to her. They were then pressurized on account of the case and Sheela was sent back to her in-laws house. Four acres of land of complainant Phool Kumar was also transferred in the name of the minor sons of Jyoti on account of the pressure having been exerted upon him. Ramesh wanted that Sheela should come back but the accused threatened that if he brought back Sheela, they would kill him. On 3/11/2018, Ramesh visited his sister Sheela at the house of her in laws and came back to Meham in the evening. However, on account of the pressure, he committed suicide by consuming some poisonous substance. On 7/12/2018, Sheela found a suicide note in which it had been alleged that the present petitioner Sandeep had illicit relations with Jyoti and that he (Ramesh) was disturbed on account of this fact.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner that the suicide note is a false and fabricated document prepared by the complainant to implicate the petitioner in a false case and that the true facts are that Ramesh had taken financial help from the petitioner and after the death of Ramesh, when the petitioner sought his amount back, he was implicated in the FIR in question. It has been averred that the stands are contradictory because on one hand Jyoti and her relatives are being blamed for the death of Ramesh and on the other hand a suicide note is being introduced to implicate the petitioner. It has been averred that the FIR, therefore, deserves to be quashed.