Important Point – In cases like, abetment to suicide founded on grounds of demand of dowry, cruelty or mental torture, evidence of systematic demand of dowry, cruelty or mental torture or physical assault are required to be proved by prosecution.

1. Vide this common order, I propose to dispose of these two petitions; one being 561-A Cr.P.C. No.176/2009 filed by petitioner-Mushtaq Ahmed Bhatti seeking quashment of order passed 28.10.2009 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kathua, whereby private respondents have been charge-sheeted under Sections 498-A & 306 RPC instead of charging them under Sections 302/34 RPC and 498-A & 306 RPC; and another petition being 561-A Cr.P.C. No.82/2010 filed by the petitioners namely Mst. Reshma Bibi, Mushtaq Ahmad and Mohd. Ashraf seeking quashment of proceedings pending before learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kathua in case titled ‘State Vs. Mohd. Ashraf & ors.’ under Sections 306/498-A RPC.

2. In petition u/s 561-A Cr.P.C. No.176/2009, it is stated that petitioner is the unfortunate father of late Mtr. Shazia Bhatti who has been killed by poisoning her for not bringing dowry and cash from her father at the time of marriage and thereafter despite persistent demand by the private respondents. The girl was killed on 19.12.2008. That though the occurrence took place on 19.12.2008, but it was only on 24.12.2008 that Police Station registered the F.I.R., being F.I.R. No. 197 of 2008 of Police Station, Billawar; and that too under Section 306 RPC. All this was done deliberately by the Police to confer undue benefit upon the private respondents to that because of lesser offence the accused will get the bail and ultimately the actual offence will get eclipsed. That the statements of certain important witnesses were recorded by learned Judicial Magistrate Billawar in terms of Section 164-A Cr.P.C.; whose statements pointed out the commission of offence under Section 302 RPC. That despite there being circumstantial evidence as well as other facts and circumstances that the challan was to be produced under Sections 498-A, 302/34 RPC, but the Police produced the Challan under Section 306 and 498-A Cr.P.C. The challan was subsequently committed to the learned Sessions Judge, Kathua from where it was further assigned to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kathua. That the petitioner made a request to the Law Department that he be permitted to engage a Special Prosecutor at his expenses, but the Law Department neither on their own nor at the motion of the petitioner engaged any Special Prosecutor. When the matter in the trial court was fixed for arguments for charge/discharge the petitioner filed an application alongwith written arguments with the request that the submissions made by the petitioner in writing be also considered for the purpose of charge, but the learned Judge below even declined to entertain the written submissions and ultimately the petitioner had to come in the Hon’ble High Court by way of Writ Petition No. 867 of 2009 for seeking a direction for allowing him to file his written submissions. The Hon’ble Court vide order dated 24.08.2009 passed the direction allowing the petitioner to file the written arguments and also engage a counsel. That elaborate arguments were advanced in the trial court on charge/discharge and the court below vide order dated 28.10.2009 ordered and subsequently charge-sheeted the accused, private respondents under Section 498-A/306 RPC; and declining the prayer of the petitioner for charging the accused under Section 302/34 RPC read with Section 498-A Cr.P.C. That the petitioner is aggrieved of the order dated 28.10.2009 and consequently charge sheeting the private respondents under Section 498-A and 306 RPC and not under 302/34/498-A RPC and challenges the same on the following grounds:-

i. That the contention of the prosecution is that the victim was tortured and harassed for dowry by the private respondents, which lead him to take the drastic step of ending her life by consuming poisonous substance. There is no such probe or finding on the point that ultimately from where the poison came and who provided the same to her?

The bottle empty or consuming part of the residue poison has not bee