The burden of proof is on the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and the power of quashing criminal proceedings should be exercised sparingly in exceptional cases to prevent abuse of the process of court and to secure the end of justice.

JUDGMENT

Amarjot Bhatti, J. - Mukesh Kumar has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.196 dated 24.12.2020 under Section 306 IPC (Section 201 IPC added lateron) registered at Police Station Sadar, District Hoshiarpur (Annexure P-1) along with all consequential proceedings arising out of the said FIR with further prayer to stay the proceedings or any other relief which this Court may deem fit in view of the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. As per the facts of the case, Dalvir Kaur filed a written complaint for investigation regarding death of her daughter under suspicious circumstances. The complainant alleged that after matrimonial dispute with her husband, she started residing in the parental house in village Bajwara. Her father has already expired and she is being looked after by her brother. On 20. 06.2019, she came to know at about 7:00 pm that her daughter Amandeep Kaur was admitted in Narad Hospital, Hoshiarpur on account of consuming some poisonous substance. She along with her brother Som Parkash went to Narad Hospital and saw that her daughter was unconscious and she was not responding. Mukesh son of Mohinder and his sister Rinku were present in the hospital who disclosed that his daughter i.e. the victim was lying unconscious in the street when they brought her to the hospital. The house of the complainant is situated nearby even then, they were not informed. She has further come to know that firstly, his daughter was taken to Kumar Hospital where they refused to admit her and ultimately, she was brought to Narad Hospital, Hoshiarpur where she died on the next day. The body was subjected to post-mortem examination and thereafter, it was handed over to the family members. Her daughter died under suspicious circumstances either by giving her some poisonous substance or by consuming it herself. The investigation was conducted. During investigation, Mohinder Pal and Rinku were found innocent whereas Mukesh Kumar, the present petitioner was arrested on 31.01.2021. On the completion of investigation, challan is presented in the court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that he is falsely implicated in this FIR. The statement of Dalbir Kaur was initially recorded where she did not suspect anybody regarding the death of her daughter and accordingly, DDR No.29 dated 21.06.2019 was recorded which is Annexure P-2. Lateron, she filed a complaint with Senior Superintendent of Police, Hoshiapur suspecting the present petitioner. Copy of that application is Annexure P-3. Even during inquiry, his father Mohinder Pal and sister Rinku @ Kulwinder Kaur were found to be innocent. In fact, the victim was lying unconscious in the street and on humanitarian ground she was admitted in the hospital. In the case in hand, there is no suicide note or other record to establish any link with the death of deceased-victim. There is nothing on record to establish the ingredients of Section 107 IPC and to establish the abetment on the part of the present petitioner in the commission of suicide by the deceased-victim. Merely on the basis of suspicion, the present petitioner has been arrested and facing trial in the aforesaid FIR. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon an authority of Supreme Court of India in Criminal Appeal No.1022 of 2021 [Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No.7554 of 2019] decided on 17.09.2021 titled as Kanchan Sharma Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another where in a similar case, 'merely because the victim consumed poison in front of house of the appellant, that itself will not show any relation of appellant with the deceased. In that case, it was further held that there was no material within the meaning of Section 107 IPC and there was no basis to proceed against the appellant for alleged offence under Section 306 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989'. By relying upon this authority, the learned counsel for the