JUDGMENT :

Rajnesh Oswal, J.-The present petition has been filed by the petitioner, who is mother of the deceased for quashing order dated 03.10.2019 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu (hereinafter to be referred as the trial court) by virtue of which, the learned trial court has charged the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 for commission of offences under Sections 306 and 498-A/34 RPC and discharged them for commission of offence under section 304-B RPC. It is submitted that the order impugned is bad in law as the learned trial court without perusing the statement of the petitioner herein, PW Nisha Devi, PW Ashok Kumar and PW Krishan Lal has altered the charge from 304-B RPC to 306 and 498-A/34 RPC despite the fact that there was abundant evidence on record for framing of charge under section 304-B RPC against the respondents 2 to 4.

2. Mr. Ajay Bakshi, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that there was sufficient material on record in the form of evidence of PW Shakuntla Devi, PW Nisha Devi, PW Ashok Kumar and PW Krishan Kumar for framing the charge under section 304-B RPC against the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 but the learned trial court ignored the vital evidence and altered the charge to 306/498-A/34 RPC. He further strenuously argued that the definition of the dowry under the Dowry Restraint Act, 1960 as was applicable under the then State of Jammu and Kashmir was ambiguous and as such, the same is required to be interpreted in a manner that serves the purpose for which section 304-B was incorporated in the Act. He further relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana and State of Himachal Pradesh v. Nikku Ram and others, (1995) 6 SCC 219. Mr. Aseem Sawhney, learned AAG too has argued that the definition on the similar lines.

3. Mr. Satinder Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 vehemently argued that the definition of the dowry as defined under the Jammu and Kashmir Dowry Restraint Act 1960 is entirely different vis-a-vis dowry as defined under the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 that is applicable to the whole of the India excluding the then State of Jammu and Kashmir. He has placed reliance upon the judgments of Apex Court in State versus A Arun Kumar, Satvir Singh versus State of Punjab, Hira Lal versus State, Balwant Singh versus State, Appa Saheb versus State of Maharashtra, Gurnaib Singh versus State of Punjab.

4. Heard and perused the record.

5. From the record, it is evident that on 14.03.2019, the petitioner submitted a written application with the Police Station, Bakshi Nagar in which it was stated that her daughter was married with respondent No. 2 in the year, 2017. The respondents 2 to 5 did not make any demand prior to the marriage, but they had given the dowry as per their capacity. The respondent No. 2 continued to demand dowry after the solemnization of marriage and started beating her daughter. Thereafter, her daughter started demanding money from them. She without disclosing to her husband gave two lacs to her few days ago but thereafter, the respondent started demanding car. They were poor people and could not meet the said demand. Due to that her in-laws started beating her. Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 5, last night administered beating to her daughter and she phoned her. She was upset and stated that her husband, father in law, mother in law and brother in law have started beating her and they also snatched the phone from her. Thereafter in the morning, respondent No. 2 phoned her and stated that her daughter had hanged herself. On the receipt of this information, FIR bearing No. 43/2019 for offence under sections 304-B RPC was registered and after the conclusion of the investigation, charge sheet for commission of offence under section 304-B/34 RPC was filed against the respondents. The respondent No. 5 had absconded as such, charge sheet was filed in absentia. The learned Sessions Judge transferred the matter to the trial court. The lea