BACHANI DEVI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the mother of Dharam Pal who was married to the 4th respondent. Smt. Kamlesh. According to the petitioner, from the beginning respondent No. 4 was not happy with the marriage and used to quarrel with the petitioner and other members of the family and had also taken Dharam pal from village Munda Khera to Nilokheri and started living there. The further case of the petitioner is that 4th respondent had developed illicit relations with the 5th respondent and in spite of his request to stop the illicit relations with the 5th respondent, the 4th respondent refused to do so. According to the petitioner, the 4th respondent in her presence (petitioner's) and in the presence of her younger son, abused Dharam Pal. The petitioner alleges that Dharam pal was killed on 13-6-1995 but she and her younger son were informed about it after a lapse of considerable time. According to the petitioner, the 4th respondent informed her that Dharam Pal had taken some poisonous tablet. The petitioner also alleges that the 4th respondent even proclaimed that she had removed the hurdle in her way and that she and Raju had killed Dharam Pal by poisoning him. According to the petitioner, she, therefore, approached the 2nd respondent namely Superintendent of Police, District Karnal several times to lodge the FIR for investigating into the matter but the 2nd respondent prolonged the matter. The petitioner also contends that she submitted representation to respondents Nos. 2 and 3 requesting them to register the FIR. The petitioner has also produced a copy of the representation which has been marked as Annexure P-1 and contends that the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 have not registered the case against respondents Nos. 4 and 5 illegally. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court for the issue of mandamus directing respondents Nos. 1 to 3 to register the FIR against respondents Nos. 4 and 5 and investigate the case.

(2.) In pursuance of the notice issued to the respondents, the 3rd respondent has filed reply on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 to 3 opposing this petition and alleging that during the enquiry none alleged any illicit relations between respondents Nos. 4 and 5 and that the grievance of the petitioner is that she is unable to get the insurance money, which the Insurance Company has denied since the deceased had committed suicide. It has also been alleged that the cause of death could not beascertained for want of report of the Chemical Examiner. The other allegations of the petition have been replied or controverted.The question is whether in view of the written representation, Annexure P-1, given by the petitioner the respondents are bound to register the FIR and investigate the case.

(3.) A reading of Annexure P-1 shows that the petitioner has specifically alleged that the 4th respondent was not happy about her marriage with Dharam Pal and that she used to quarrel with him on the ground that he had not given a son to her; that the deceased had requested the 4th respondent to discontinue her illicit relations with 5th respondent but she refused to do so, and that she had even told that she would kill him (Dharam Pal) by poisoning. She has specifically alleged that Dharam Pal has been killed by respondents Nos. 4 and 5 by poisoning.