General allegations without specific acts do not establish a prima facie case for dowry death under Section 304B IPC, warranting quashing of the FIR.

JUDGMENT

Mrs. Manisha Batra, J.

The instant petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No.110 dated 09.08.2018 registered at Police Station Chabbewal, District Hoshiarpur under Section 304B of the IPC, to which Section 34 of IPC has been added by the investigating agency vide DDR No.26 dated 05.05.2021 and the subsequent proceedings emanating therefrom.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts relevant for disposal of this petition are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of statement recorded by the complainant Pardeep Kumar on 09.08.2018 alleging therein that his daughter Shivani who was married with accused Rohit Prashar about five years back, was subjected to cruelty by her in-laws and husband on account of demand of dowry. They used to extend beatings to her. Several times, compromises had been effected in this regard with a view to settle his daughter at her nuptial home. He alleged that on the same day at about 9:15 AM, he received information about the death of his daughter who was seven months pregnant at that time and was ill from the last three days. While alleging that she had been killed by accused Rohit Prashar, other members of her in-laws family including the petitioners who are maternal uncle and aunt respectively of the accused Rohit Prashar, he prayed for taking action against the culprits. Investigation proceedings were initiated. As per the Chemical Examiner Report which was called for after seeking postmortem examination of the dead body of the victim, the cause of death was consumption of organophosphorus. The present petitioner and the co-accused were apprehended. They were joined into investigation. The petitioners were extended benefit of bail. After completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court and presently, the petitioners along with the co-accused are facing trial before the learned trial Court for offence under Section 304B of IPC.

3. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners on the grounds and it has been argued by their counsel that they have been falsely implicated in this case. No specific overt act has been attributed to them in causing the alleged dowry death of the victim. They are residing separately in their own house and had no interference of any kind in the matrimonial life of the deceased and her husband. There is no material on record to indicate that they had any role in administering any poisonous substance to the victim or they had subjected her to cruelty on account of any demand of dowry. No injury was found on the person of the victim and there was no question of the substance like organophosphorus being administered to the victim in clandestine manner by the petitioners. Hence, it is argued that the FIR qua them deserves to be quashed.

4. As per the status report, the cause of death of victim was consumption of some poisonous substance. Learned State counsel assisted by learned Legal Aid Counsel for respondent No.2 has submitted that there was specific mention of names of the petitioners in the complaint and there are also specific allegations that they along with other members of the in-laws family of the victim had been repeatedly torturing her to fulfill the demand of dowry. He argued that it was not a case to quash the proceedings at this stage. The veracity of the allegations as levelled against them has to be decided in trial before the trial Court and they can prove their innocence in the trial. With these broad submissions, it was submitted that no case of quashing was made out.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection.

6. At the outset, it will be profitable to look into the scope and ambit of the Court's power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as spelt out in several judicial pronouncements of Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as different High Courts. Th