IMPORTANT POINT: Presence of minimum and prima-facie evidence is must to frame charge.

S.G.SHAH

1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Kamlesh Mehta for the petitioners, learned advocate Mr.Nikul Soni for the respondent No.2 and learned APP Mr.K.P.Raval for the respondent No.1 – State.

2. Perused the record. The petitioners herein are in-laws of the victim, who committed suicide because of matrimonial dispute with her husband. At present, we are not entering into the minute details of matrimonial dispute or reason for suicide by the victim, for the simple reason that practically, at present, husband of the victim is not before us and therefore, so far as personal matrimonial dispute and details of such disputes are concerned, it would not be appropriate to discuss all such details in absence of any submission on behalf of the husband, who is not before us, so also for the simple reason that discussion and determination on such factual details may otherwise prejudice the trial where evidence is yet to be recorded.

3. The only issue to be resolved in this petition at this stage is regarding continuity of criminal proceedings against the present petitioners viz. petitioner No.1 is mother-in-law, petitioner No.2 is sister-in-law i.e. sister of the husband of the victim, petitioner No.3 is brother-in-law i.e. brother of the victim’s husband and petitioner No.4 is brother-in-law of petitioner No.2 i.e. brother of husband of petitioner No.2, and to that extent, he is altogether in a remote situation since he can never be termed as a family member or even member of family of in-laws of the victim. It is also to be recorded that victim and her husband are residing separately from all these petitioners since long and to be more precise, at the time of incident, practically, all the petitioners were residing separately at different places from the residence of victim and her husband. Thereby, petitioners No.1 and 3 being mother and son, they are residing together at Suncity Society in Mehsana town, whereas victim was residing in police line at Mehsana, similarly, petitioners No.2 and 4 are residing at Basana Village, Taluka Visnanagar, District Mehsana and thereby, all the petitioners are residing at some distance from the residence of the victim and her husband.

4. However, when victim has committed suicide because of her matrimonial problem with her husband, though marriage of the victim with her husband was solemnized before 28 years, the investigating agency has while investigating the case thought it proper to file charge-sheet against present petitioners also with the husband of the victim and therefore, petitioners have filed an application at Exh.5 before the Sessions Court, Mehsana in Sessions Case No.69 of 2015.

5. At present, the order dated 30.11.2015 below such application, Exh.5, whereby application to discharge present petitioners has been dismissed by the Sessions Court, Mehsana is under challenge.

6. The learned advocate for the petitioners has rightly annexed all relevant statements with its typed copy on record so as to ascertain that whether there is any allegation against the petitioners in the police papers so as to file charge-sheet against them and thereafter, to frame charges against them. If we peruse such record, it becomes clear that except the statement of brother of the victim, namely, Rameshbhai Haribhai Solanki, copy of which is on page 31 to 33D, makes it clear that the brother of the victim has in clear words disclosed only to the effect that when they came to know about the dispute between the victim and her husband, they have tried to convince the parents and brother of the victim. To substantiate such statement, the witness has stated before the investigating agency in his statement that when he, with his parents and brothers had been to the parents of the husband of the victim, amongst whom petitioner No.1 is residing in town – city with petitioner No.3, instead of supporting them and instead of convincing the husband of the victim not to continue the family dispute with the victim, all the