Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramswaroop Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 May, 2016
MCRC-7789-2014
(RAMSWAROOP SHARMA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
10-05-2016
Shri VD Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Kuldeep Singh, learned PL for the respondent/state.
Shri Ankit Saxena, learned counsel for the complainant. With the consent of parties, the matter is being heard finally at motion stage.
Perused the documents brought on record.
Invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this court, the petitioners have preferred this petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C for quashing the First Information Report concerning Crime No.78 of 2014 registered at PS Pandokhar district Datia against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 120B and 498A read with section 120B of IPC and 25/27 of the Arms Act and consequential proceedings of the sessions trial which is pending before the court of sessions.
The facts in nut-shell giving rise to this petition are that on 21.6.2014, father in law of deceased, Ramswaroop reported the matter to the police that his Daughter in law Manju committed suicide by firing katta at her forehead. On this intimation, Merg was registered bearing No.12 of 2014 under section 174 of Cr.P.C. During merg investigation, the statements of her father Ramjilal, the aunty Ramwati, the uncle Ramniwas and the brother Amit were recorded in which, they have categorically disclosed about the harassment being meted out to the deceased at the hands of her in laws i.e. the father in law, the mother in law and the husband Virendra and one other over the demand of Rs.1,00,000/- as dowry because of that, the deceased was murdered by the petitioners- accused in connivance with the other co-accused. Therefore, on 24.6.2014, an FIR was registered and after investigation, the charge sheet was filed in the court of ACJM, Bhander and now, the case is pending as stated herein above, giving rise to this petition. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that they are senior citizens and have been falsely implicated in the case. The deceased and petitioners used to reside happily in the same house for the last nine years but there was neither any incident of any torture was reported by the deceased nor her parents had ever reported the same to the police or investigating agency about the alleged demand and it was only after the death of the deceased, the parents of the deceased started hurling false and concocted allegations against them without any basis which are not sustainable in the eyes of law. The learned counsel for the petitioners-accused further submits that there is no direct or circumstantial evidence against the petitioners to implicate them in committing the murder of the deceased Manju who was their daughter in law. The counsel further contends that the statements of father, brother, aunt and uncle (Fufa) of the deceased are not based on any concrete facts. They have deposed their statements only on the basis of surmises and conjectures, owing to which, the said statements do not have any credence for the allegations made against the petitioners. The counsel further contends that the deceased Manju herself committed suicide by firing a country made pistol at her forehead therefore first information report and consequences of the charge sheet filed against the petitioners be quashed.
Learned PL as well as the counsel for the complainant opposing the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners submit that the petitioners are the father in law and mother in law of the deceased Manju whose marriage was solemnized with their son Virendra Sharma. The death of the deceased is homicidal in nature. Indisputably, when the alleged incident took place with her she was residing in her in laws house along with the petitioners, her husband and other family members. In the said circumstances when the death of the deceased is not a natural one, it is to be explained by the petitioners as to how the deceased died the homicidal death. The defence story put forth by their counsel ought to be proved by their cogent and reliable evidence without which, at this stage it cannot be inferred that the deceased herself had committed suicide. Learned counsel further contend that it was quite unnatural that the deceased had been able to procure a country made pistol for committing suicide. It has been further argued that the statements of Ramji Lal the father, Pawan Sharma the brother, Smt. Ramwati Sharma the aunt and Rambaran Sharma uncle (fufa) of the deceased who have made specific allegations against the petitioners and the husband of the deceased and other family members that the deceased was murdered by the petitioners in connivance with their son Virendra Sharma the husband of the deceased and other co-accused cannot be disbelieved at this stage. Their evidence should be recorded before the trial court only thereafter it can be ascertained as to whether, the prosecution evidence is reliable or not. The counsels further contend that the charges have already been framed against the petitioners and propriety and legality of the charges were not challenged by the petitioners in the competent court and they had attained finality. In the said circumstances, there is no scope to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction bestowed upon this court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR and the session trial pending against the petitioners.
Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the documents brought on record.
On perusal of the record, it transpires that the deceased Manju was 26 years of age when the alleged incident took place with her. Her death is not natural. As per the postmortem report a gunshot injury was found in her forehead because of that she died. On the basis of the postmortem report it can be inferred that the death of the deceased is homicidal in nature. Indisputably, the alleged incident took place in the house of the petitioners where the deceased was residing with them along with her husband and other co-accused. When the death of the daughter in law being homicidal in nature, had committed in her in laws house, it is the duty of the in laws and her husband to explain that in what circumstances her homicidal death was committed with her as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Joydev Patra and Others Vs. State of West Bengal 2013 AIR SCW 2744 and Nika Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (1972) 2 SCC 80.
When the alleged incident took place with the deceased, the petitioners/accused were residing in the house, therefore, at this stage it cannot be inferred that the petitioners are innocent about the alleged incident. On the contrary it appears that the petitioner No.1 Ram Sarup Sharma gave a wrong information to the police that the deceased committed suicide. Besides it the statements of the witnesses referred to earlier, cannot be discarded at this stage unless their statements are recorded before the trial court. Therefore, it is found that there is sufficient evidence against the petitioners/accused about their involvement in the alleged incident. It is a cardinal principle of law that under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. an FIR and the investigation can only be quashed in those circumstances where no evidence is found against the accused. Moreover, the charges have already been framed against the petitioners/accused and the propriety and legality of the charges had not been challenged by them and they had attained finality. In such circumstances, there is no need to interfere in the proceedings of the sessions trial pending against the petitioners. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.
(M.K. MUDGAL) JUDGE