IMPORTANT POINT
Mere refusal to marry does not amount to abetment of suicide; FIR can only be quashed if allegations do not constitute a prima facie case.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

1. The petitioners have filed the present petition for quashing the FIR No. 192/2022 dated 8^th June 2022, registered at Police Station Una for the commission of offences punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the consequential proceedings arising out of the FIR. (The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they are arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience).

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the informant made a complaint to the police, asserting that her sister, Guddi alias Sapna (since deceased), was serving in a private company at Baddi. Reena Thakur resided near the room of Guddi in the same vicinity. Reena told the informant that petitioner No.1 Arman came to Guddi’s room on 4^th June 2022 at 10:30. Petitioner No.1 and Guddi went to the Gurudwara on 5^th June 2022. Armaan left the room of Guddi on 6^th June 2022. He called Guddi and asked her to visit Una to meet his mother, the petitioner No.2 Rakesh Kumari, to discuss the marriage between Armaan and Guddi. Guddi left for Una on 7^th June 2022. She informed Reena that she was going to meet Armaan and his mother. The matter regarding the marriage between Guddi and Armaan was discussed at Una. Guddi told the informant that she was sitting in a Midpoint Hotel and Restaurant, where Rakesh Kumari, the mother of Armaan, abused and blamed her. Armaan also refused to marry her. Guddi committed suicide due to the abuses of Rakesh Kumari and the refusal by Armaan to marry her. The police registered the FIR and conducted the investigation. The police collected call detail records and found that Armaan and Guddi were in touch with each other. The report of analysis shows that phosphine gas was detected in the viscera of Guddi. The postmortem report shows that the cause of death was phosphide poisoning. The police arrested Armaan and his mother and filed the chargesheet before the court. The matter was listed for prosecution evidence on 20^th and 21^st November 2024. Statements of ten out of eighteen witnesses have been recorded; hence, the status report.

3. Being aggrieved by the registration of the FIR and continuation of the proceedings before the learned Trial Court, the petitioners have filed the present petition, asserting that they cannot be held responsible for the death of Guddi. There is no evidence against the petitioners, and there is every possibility of the acquittal of the petitioners. The continuation of criminal proceedings amounts to an abuse of the process of law. The prosecution did not collect any cogent evidence against the petitioners. Mere allegations that Armaan had refused to marry Guddi and that his mother had abused her are not sufficient. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the proceedings pending before the learned Trial Court be quashed.

4. I have heard Mr. Virender Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for respondents 1 to 3, and Mr Rajeev Sharma, learned counsel for the informant/respondent No. 4.

5. Mr. Virender Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that there is no cogent evidence against the petitioners to connect them with the commission of a crime. Mere refusal to marry does not amount to an abetment to commit suicide. He relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kamaruddin Dastagir Sanadi vs. State of Karnataka, Criminal Appeal No. 551 of 2012decided on 29^th November 2024, in support of his submission.

6. Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the contents of the FIR show that petitioner Rakesh Kumari had abused Guddi, who committed suicide in the restaurant where she was talking to the petitioners. The police found sufficient material to file a chargesheet before the Court. The learned Trial Court has framed charges. The petitioners have not