The main legal point established in the judgment is that heinous and serious offences, such as those under Sections 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code, should not be quashed based on a settlement or compromise between the parties, emphasizing the societal impact and the need for deterrence and justice.

JUDGMENT :

SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J.

1. The present revision has been preferred praying for quashing of the proceedings of G.R. Case No. 624 of 2009, pending before the Court of the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Contai which arose out of Ramnagar Police Station Case No. 86/2009 dated 3.8.2009 under Sections 498A/304B of the Indian Penal Code and Charge Sheet No. 95/2009 dated 27.10.2009 under Sections 498A/304B of the Indian Penal Code submitted in connection with Ramnagar Police Station Case No. 86/2009 dated 3.8.2009.

2. FACTS:

Ramnagar Police Station Case No. 86/2009 dated 3.8.2009 was registered for investigation on the basis of a complaint lodged by the opposite party no. 2 with the Officer-in-Charge of Ramnagar Police Station, inter-alia alleging commission of offence by the petitioner and others punishable under Sections 498A/304B of the Indian Penal Code.

The allegations levelled in the said complaint are inter alia to the effect that the daughter of the complainant/opposite party no. 2 namely Sukuman Bibi was married to one Sk. Firdaus according to Muslim rites and customs. During such marriage, as per the demand on the side of the bridegroom, the opposite party no. 2 paid a sum of Rs. 1,30,000/- in cash. However, since after marriage the daughter of the opposite party no. 2 was subjected to physical and mental torture by the accused persons over the issue of more dowry.

It is alleged that the daughter of the opposite party no. 2 narrated such incident to the opposite party no. 2 and the opposite party no. 2 then warned the accused persons.

It is further alleged that after his daughter's marriage, the opposite party no. 2 came to know that the father-in-law of his daughter is a characterless person.

It is also alleged that torture, both physical and mental, inflicted upon the daughter of the opposite party no. 2 by her mother-in-law and other members of her matrimonial home reached its peak but her husband Sk. Firdaus did not protest to such torture or take any steps.

It is further alleged that on 3.8.2009 the accused persons in collusion and conspiracy with Sk. Firdaus killed the daughter of the opposite party no. 2 and hanged her body.

3. The petitioner herein is the married sister-in-law (nanad) of the deceased, who also resides in the same district.

4. It is stated that after completion of a purported investigation, the Investigating Agency submitted a report in final form vide Charge Sheet No. 95/2009 dated 27.10.2009 under Sections 498A/304B of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and 3 others.

5. It is further submitted by the petitioner that, in the First Information Report as well as the charge sheet, no specific case has been made out against the petitioner under Sections 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code, save and except certain omnibus allegations against the petitioner, herein.

6. FINDINGS:

From the case diary placed by the learned counsel for the State it appears that the deceased was married only for one year when she died at an age of only 20 years (approx).

7. The victim died by hanging and the opinion of the doctor in the post mortem report is that the death is suicidal in nature.

8. She died within 11 months of marriage.

9. There are several statements and sufficient materials on record making out a prima facie case in respect of the offences alleged, against the petitioner herein, for the case to proceed towards trial.

10. The Supreme Court in Daxaben vs. State of Gujarat and Others, Criminal Appeal No..........of 2022, on July 29, 2022, held that:

“14. The proposition of law enunciated and/or re-enunciated in the judgments cited above are well settled. Whether the acts alleged would constitute an offence, would depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case. Each case has to be judged on its own merits.

16. It is not necessary for this Court to go into the question of whether there was any direct or indirect act of incitement to the offence of abetment of suicide, since the High Court h