IMPORTANT POINT
Quashing of Complaint--Abetment to suicide--Merely because revision petition filed by complainant and others challenging order whereby charge was framed against them under Sections 304-B/498-A IPC is no ground to quash complaint--It would be established during trial as to which of version i.e one in FIR or one in present complaint is correct.

Mrs. Sabina, J.:- Vide this order, both the above mentioned petitions, Criminal Misc. No.M-40080 of 2006 and Criminal Revision No. 580 of 2007, are being disposed of as the controversy involved is the same in both the cases.

2. Criminal Misc. No. M-40080 of 2006 has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (‘Cr.P.C. in short) for quashing of complaint titled as ‘Mahender Partap versus Dr.Sanjeev and another’ under Sections 306 and 506/34 IPC dated 11.3.2005 and the summoning order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat dated 15.5.2006. Criminal Revision No. 580 of 2007 has been filed for setting aside the order dated 7.11.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat whereby charge was ordered to be framed against the petitioners.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they have been falsely involved in this case at the instance of the complainant. In fact, the complainant himself is facing the trial under Section 304-B, 498-A IPC in FIR No.11 dated 6.1.2005 registered at Police Station Civil Lines Sonepat. The complainant and others had challenged the order vide which the charge had been framed against them under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC in this Court and the said petition was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 9.8.2005. During the pendency of the said petition, the complaint in question had been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that a suicide note was recovered from the dead body of the deceased- Usha. The suicide note was taken in possession by the Police and as per the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory (for short ‘FSL), the suicide note was in the handwriting of the deceased. Since a prima facie case was made out against the petitioners under Section 306 IPC, therefore, both these petitions were liable to be dismissed.

5. The contents of the complaint read as under:-

“ The complainant begs to submit as under:-

1. That the complainant is permanent resident of above mentioned address and is a law abiding citizen of India. The complainant is an officer of Ist Class and is working in MTNL Delhi.

2. That the son of the complainant namely Dr. Pardeep Kumar was married with Dr. Usha on 22.2.1999 and since then they were residing at Adarsh Nagar, Sonepat.

3. That after 1½ years of the marriage, Pardeep Kumar Dahiya and his wife Usha Rani started living separately from the petitioner and they started their education business. The son of the complainant, Dr. Pardeep Kumar and his wife Smt Usha were running a Para Medical Institute under the name and style of Maharishi Daya Nand Para Medical Institute at Adarsh Nagar, Sonepat. In the above said institute, there were many teachers including the accused persons. A group photo of the staff of the institution, photo copy of salary slip, photo copy of affiliation certificate and photo copy of authorization letter is attached.

4. That the accused persons established their separate Para Medical Institution at Rathdhana Road, Sonepat. The accused persons started harassing and humiliating the son and daughter in law of the complainant by writing letters to the students. They also wrote some defamatory letters against Dr. Usha i.e. daughter-in-law of the complainant. Accused persons also got published some defamatory articles in newspaper against the institution of the deceased Usha. Accused also on 2-3 occasions visited the institution of Dr.Usha and insulted her and her husband. The accused persons also wrote some letters to the parents of the students of the Institution of the son of the complainant, stating that Dr.Usha and her husband Dr. Pardeep had not even deposited the fees deposited by the students of the concerned “University”. The accused persons also alleged in the said letters that the University from which the Institution of Dr.Usha got affiliated is also bogus.

5. That the accused persons also abette