The court emphasized the need for sparing exercise of inherent power and highlighted the importance of fair and judicious investigation. It also discussed the limited scope of quashing an FIR to prevent abuse of process of law or to secure the ends of justice.

JUDGMENT :

1. Through the instant petition filed under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No. 0085/2018, dated 18.05.2018 registered with Police Station, Pacca Danga, Jammu against the petitioner for commission of offences under Sections 498-A, 304-B RPC and 30 Arms Act and also quashing the proceedings/investigation being conducted against the petitioner by the respondent No. 1 in the impugned FIR.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is presently serving as Inspector in J&K Police and posted at Company Commander “D” Coy IRP 7th Bn. Amb Garota, Jammu. He was married to Ms. Neha Kumari in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. Their marriage was solemnized on 07.12.2014. The relations of the petitioner with his wife were cordial and there was neither any fight nor any issue between them. The wife of the petitioner unfortunately died from a gunshot injury from the service revolver of the petitioner on 26.02.2018 and proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. were initiated by the Police and on the basis of inquest proceedings which mainly consists of report of the Ballistic Expert, the Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that since the death of the deceased is not because of natural cause, FIR is required to be registered and it is due to these findings of Ballistic expert, impugned FIR No. 0085 of 2018, dated 18.05.2018 has been registered with Police Station, Pacca Danga, Jammu against the petitioner for commission of offences under Sections 498-A, 304- B RPC and 30 Arms Act.

3. The petitioner is aggrieved of the impugned FIR No. 0085 of 2018, dated 18.05.2018 and the proceedings/investigation being conducted against the petitioner, therefore, seeks to challenge the same on the following grounds:-

(a) That the impugned FIR registered by the respondent against the petitioner is totally illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of law, therefore, the same deserves to be quashed.

(b) The reason for registration of FIR is absolutely illegal and legally not sustainable. The death case of the deceased in which the petitioner has been wrongly and falsely roped into from every angle is not a case of 498-A and 304-B RPC.

(c) That all cases of unnatural death within seven years of marriage are not covered by Section 304- B. In the instant case there was no evidence collected or surfaced during the enquiry/inquest proceedings which even remotely suggested existence of offence punishable under Section 498-A or 304-B RPC against the petitioner. Section 304-B RPC reads as under:-

"304-B. Dowry Death:-

(i) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for or in connection with any demand for dowry, such death shall be caused "dowry death" and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused that death.

Explanation:- 1. For the purpose of this sub-section, the "dowry" shall have the same meaning as mentioned in Section 2 of the Dowry Restraint Act, 1960.

Explanation:- 2. For the purpose of this sub-section "cruelty" shall have the same meaning as in Section 498-A of this Code.

(ii) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life." For invoking Section 304-B against the petitioner and for roping the petitioner for commission of offence punishable under Section 304-B RPC, much more was required to be proved in the inquest proceedings. No allegations with any evidence documentary or otherwise with request to harassment or cruelty alleged to have been meted out to the deceased soon before her death has come against the petitioner during inquest proceedings. Therefore, it is highly illegal on the part of the respondent to register the impugned FIR against the petitioner