HIMANSHU SHARMA Vs. STATE OF J&K & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two petitions, clubbed together, raise a common question of law and the facts as these arise out of the same FIR bearing No. 04 of 2010, registered at Police Station, Gandhinagar, Jammu, for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 RPC and, therefore, require to be determined and decided by a common judgment.

(2.) The facts culled from the aforesaid petitions are that the police authorities of Police Chowki, Nehru Market, Jammu, received an information on the 22nd day of December, 2009, from the authorities of the Government Medical College, Jammu, to the effect that one Dr. Aparna Saini D/o Sh. Kamal Saini, a Deputy Inspector General of Police, committed suicide at the place of her dwelling, i.e. Government quarter No. 21/C, situate at Gulshan Ground, Jammu. On this information, a Daily Dairy report bearing No. 17 dated 22nd of December, 2009, was entered at Police Post, Nehru Market, as a consequence of which, an enquiry, as postulated under Section 174 Cr. P.C. for ascertaining the cause of the death of the deceased, was initiated. The said enquiry culminated into the registration of an FIR, being No. 04 of the year 2010, for the commission of an offence punishable under Sections 306 read with section 34 RPC and, as a sequel thereto, the investigation ensued. On the completion of the investigation of the case, a report was laid against the petitioners in terms of Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In this report, filed before the Court, it is stated that on the appreciation, evaluation and assessment of the statements of the witnesses recorded under Sections 161 and 164(A) Cr. P.C., as also by reference to some documents, it is established that the petitioners have committed the offence aforesaid. What gets revealed from this report further is that Dr. Aparna Saini was engaged to the petitioner, namely, Himanshu Sharma on 20th of February, 2009 and after this engagement, Dr. Aparna Saini came to know that the petitioner-Himanshu Sharma has illicit relations with Dr. Lata Sheoran, i.e. the petitioner in CRMC No.47/2010, who was residing with the petitioner-Himanshu Sharma in the house in which he lived. The deceased took repeated objections to the conduct of petitioner-Himanshu Sharma and he, in turn, would harass and humiliate her and would also affirm that he will not marry her. Dr. Aparna Saina could not bear this humiliation. She felt that she will be brought to a ridicule in the Society and, therefore, thought it expedient to hang herself to death.

(3.) Both the petitioners, in their respective petitions, have challenged the vires of the FIR registered against them on the grounds, inter alia, that neither the FIR nor the investigation of the case, at any stage whatsoever, disclosed the commission of any offence against them. The final investigation report laid before the Court of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu, also does not, in any manner whatsoever, disclose the commission of the offence imputed to them. Registration of an FIR, it is stated, is not an idle formality and cannot be done as a matter of course. An FIR can be registered only after probing deep into the allegations made in light of the law disclosing a, prima facie, offence. The allegations levelled against the petitioners are, prima facie, incapable of making out any offence against them and, therefore, the entire investigation is vitiated in the instant case. It is also stated that if the entire prosecution story is taken to be true on its face value, still, it is not capable of disclosing any offence, much less against the petitioners herein. The proceedings initiated against the petitioners would be an abuse of the power and jurisdiction as is conferred on the Investigating Agency for the registration of the case and would also be an abuse of the process of law. The allegations made in the FIR and the Police report are only in the nature of wild allegations in which the Investigating Agency has surrendered its duty to investigate the matter on the asking of the complainant, a high-ranking Police Officer. Arresting the petitioner-Hemanshu Sharma, humiliating him and his family, almost succeeding in devastating the entire family and nearly coming close/ becoming successful in eliminating an innocent person was the game plan of the Investigating Agency, devised to satisfy the powers and interests other than that of the law or its majesty. The very registering of the FIR has been conceived in deceit, investigation carried out and Challan filed in fraud of the Statute, although, the Investigating Agency, right through, knew that the petitioners are innocent and are being framed in the matter. Fairness is so essential to the concept of investigation and it cannot be conveniently substituted by unfair means/ methods and the allegations, of which any self-respecting human being would be ashamed. It was done only because a case had to be foisted upon the petitioners, whose relationship is that of a Brother and a Sister. The Investigating Agency has shown scant respect for this relation of the petitioners and, knowingly, false allegations have been levelled against them. Law has been muzzled and silenced to serve the vested interests. It needs to be stated that the petitioner-Dr. Himanshu Sharma was pursuing his MBBS course from Government Medical College, Jammu and the petitioner-Dr. Lata Sheoran was also undergoing the same course. In the chargesheet, it is submitted that the petitioners, whose relation was that of a Brother and a Sister, had illicit relations which persuaded the deceased to take an unwarranted step of putting an end to her life. It is also stated that Dr. Aparna Saini wanted the petitioner-Dr Himanshu Sharma to end his relationship with the petitioner, named Dr. Lata Sheoran, which he did not agree and he harassed and humiliated the deceased, which, according to the Prosecution, resulted in the deceased ending her life. This allegation does not disclose the commission of any offence by the petitioners. The proceedings, thus, if allowed to continue, will amount to an abuse of the process of the law. Only because the petitioner-Dr. Himanshu Sharma lacked the influence or did not have the means to meet the men and muscle of the complainant should not and would not make the life of a citizen so dependent on the whim and caprice of an authority which has the power and jurisdiction to register a case, that the very life would be threatened and would practically be taken away. If laws are made as a requirement of the Society, they are to be executed to maintain the same. Laws are not made and executed for being a tool to wreck vengeance or become an instrument for its subversion. Innocence of a citizen cannot be destroyed or beaten into silence by orchestrated noise of manipulation and subversion of law. Petitioners, being innocent, have no reason to suffer further consequences of a false FIR and tainted investigation. Law would lack both courage and conviction to let any innocent being destroyed only because law is capable of misuse as well. In the end, the petitioners have prayed that the proceedings initiated against them before the Court of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu, in case titled 'State v. Dr. Himanshu Sharma & Anr.', being an abuse of the process of the law, be quashed.