JUDGMENT :

MANISHA BATRA, J.

1. Challenge in this petition, filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘the Code’), is to the order dated 16.03.2023 (Annexure P-7), passed by the Court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Guhla, District Kaithal in Criminal Complaint bearing No. COMI-40-2021, titled as Inderjeet Sharma vs. Vinod Sharma and others, filed under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC, whereby the petitioners had been summoned to appear and face trial for commission of aforementioned offences.

2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that on 07.08.2021, an FIR bearing No. 225 was registered under Section 302 of IPC on the basis of a complaint submitted by respondent No. 2/complainant Inderjeet Sharma making allegation that present petitioner No. 1 Nancy Sharma, who was wife of his son Love Sharma, and her family members had set Love Sharma ablaze on the same day, when he had gone to the parental house of Nancy Sharma and thereby murdered him. After conducting investigation in the said FIR, a cancellation report was prepared. Thereafter, the aforementioned complaint had been filed by respondent No. 2/complainant on the allegations that after the marriage of petitioner No. 1 with victim Love on 19.04.2018, they had been cohabiting together. A male child was also born to them. It was alleged that petitioner No. 1 secured a job as a Staff Nurse at Community Health Centre, Guhla on 15.01.2019 and thereafter, she had started pressurizing the victim to leave his profession of a driver by saying that she used to feel embarrassed about his profession. Under the continuous and constant pressure of petitioner upon the victim to leave his driving job, he used to remain under heavy mental stress. Petitioner No. 1 even left her matrimonial house on 02.08.2021 along with the infant child.

3. As per the further allegations, in the morning of 06.8.2021, respondent No. 2 along with his son (victim) and wife had contacted the person, who was the mediator for performing marriage between the victim and petitioner No. 1, who had told petitioner No. 1 and her father petitioner No. 2 Vinod Sharma about the fact that the victim and his family wanted to take petitioner No. 1 back to her matrimonial home but petitioner No. 2 refused to send his daughter with the victim. On the same evening, the victim had gone to the parental house of his wife/petitioner No. 1and on the same night, respondent No.2 received a message that the victim had been burnt. He was taken to hospital but succumbed to burn injuries. By alleging that the victim had set himself ablaze after being insulted, humiliated, harassed and humiliated at the hands of the petitioners, respondent No.2 prayed for taking action.

4. After presentation of the complaint in the Court, learned Magistrate proceeded to record the preliminary evidence and also sought report under Section 210 of the Code from the SHO concerned, which was received. In preliminary evidence, respondent No. 2/complainant examined as many as six witnesses including himself, besides placing reliance upon certain documentary evidence and thereafter closed the same.

5. After hearing the contentions raised by the complainant and appraising the evidence produced on record, learned Magistrate, vide impugned order dated 16.03.2023, observed that there was a prima facie case for issuance of summons against the petitioners under Section 306 of IPC and thereby issued process. Aggrieved from the same, the present petition has been filed by the petitioners.

6. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned order dated 16.03.2023 is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be set aside. Respondent No. 2 had got an FIR under Section 302 of IPC registered against the petitioners levelling allegations that they had set the victim ablaze. It is only after filing of cancellation of report in that FIR that respondent No.2/complainant came o