Point of Law: 306. Abetment of suicide.—If any person commits suicide, whoever abets commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

JUDGMENT :

(Sandeep Sharma, J.)

1. By way of instant petition filed under S.482 CrPC, prayer has been made on behalf of petitioner for quashing of FIR No. 20, dated 20.5.2020 registered at Police Station Nankhari, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh as well as consequent proceedings pending adjudication in the competent court of law i.e. case No.12 of 2021, titled State v. Arun Kumar.

2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record, are that FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings came to be lodged at the behest of respondent No.4-Budhi Singh (hereinafter, ‘complainant’), who alleged that marriage of his daughter Neha was solemnized three years back with one Arun Kumar son of Kesar Singh, resident of Village and Post Office Kharahan, Tehsil Nakhari Shimla as per Hindu rites and customs. He alleged that two years back, his daughter Neha (deceased) had come back to her matrimonial house from Kharahan, after being mentally and physically harassed by her in-laws. Above named complainant alleged that his daughter had disclosed two years back that her mother-in-law and her sister-in-law, namely Shakuntla and Poonam harassed her. He further alleged that after two months, his son-in-law, Arun Kumar alongwith 2-3 persons had come to take his deceased daughter, Neha back to his matrimonial house. He further alleged that though husband of his daughter had assured that nobody would torture his daughter at his matrimonial house but yet mother-in-law and sister-in-law kept on mentally and physically harassing his daughter, as a result of which, she was in depression. He alleged that on 20.5.2020 at 6.00 am, he called Neha, but she did not pick up the call and at around 9.00 am, Kesar Singh, father-in-law of his deceased, apprised his son that Neha has committed suicide by hanging herself from a tree in nearby fields. He stated that after receipt of such information, he alongwith villagers reached the spot and found that his daughter had committed suicide. Complainant alleged that Neha committed suicide after being mentally and physically harassed by her in-laws namely Shakuntla and Kesar Singh and sister-in-law Poonam and as such, action in accordance with law be taken against them.

3. On the basis of aforesaid complaint, FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings came to be instituted against persons namely Arun Kumar, Shakuntla, Kesar Singh and Poonam. Since during investigation, police found that present petitioner, who happens to be son-in-law of accused Kesar Singh and Shakuntla and husband of Poonam, was present at village Kharahan, where allegedly, the deceased Neha committed suicide, case under S.306, 34 IPC also came to be registered against present petitioner alongwith other accused named herein above.

4. Though, after completion of investigation, Police have presented Challan in the competent court of law but before the same could be taken to its logical end, petitioner has approached this court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for quashment of FIR and consequential proceedings, on the ground that there is no case much less case under S.306 IPC is made out against the petitioner as such he deserves to be discharged.

5. Replies on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 to 3 and respondent No.4 stand filed, wherein facts as have been noticed herein above, have not been disputed rather stand admitted.

6. Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, learned Additional Advocate General, while fairly admitting the fact that no specific allegation ever came to be made against the present petitioner with regard to harassment and maltreatment meted to Neha, submitted that since on the date of incident, he was present in Village Kharahan, possibility of his being involved in the case cannot be ruled out as such, it would be too premature at this stage, to conclude innocence, if any, of present petitioner. Mr. Bhatnagar, submitted that since the petitioner already stands enlarged on bail, no prejudice shall be caused to him, in cas