Hon’ble Amitava Lala, J.—This writ petition is made for the purpose of quashing the First Information Report (hereinafter called as F.I.R.) registered under case Crime No. 49 of 2005 under Sections 498-A/304-B, I.P.C. lodged on 24th February, 2006 by the respondent No. 4 at Police Station Nawabganj, District, Kanpur Nagar and not to arrest the petitioner or take any action against the petitioner on the basis of such F.I.R. alongwith incidental prayer in connection thereto.

2. In brief, facts of the case is described herein. The petitioner and the daughter of respondent No. 4 were happily married couple. A male child was born by their wedlock. The petitioner is socially and financially well established. There is no question of any harassment by the petitioner to his wife i.e. the daughter of respondent No. 4 after marriage. But when sister of the wife became widow and wanted to adopt the petitioner’s son, quarrel took place. In the morning of the fateful day i.e. on 31st January, 2006 when the petitioner left the house after exchange of words, he got a telephone call that his wife out of irritation took poison and the condition is deteriorating. He came back and hospitalised his wife, but she could not survive.

3. An F.I.R. was lodged after about 24 days from the date of occurrence just to pressurize the petitioner to hand over the child to the sister of the petitioner’s wife as desired by the petitioner’s wife in the suicide note. The F.I.R. is totally baseless. There is no iota of material evidence. No such relationship arose between him and his wife during the tenure of marriage, which can lead to a situation of committing suicide.

4. It is contended by the petitioner that a suicide note written by the deceased is admissible evidence under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act. If the same is implicated someone, it is enough for securing conviction. Similarly when she has not levelled any allegation against the petitioner in her dying declaration either disclosing any evidence under Section 304-B or under Section 306 I.P.C., there is no basis to proceed against the petitioner. The F.I.R. cannot be substantial piece of evidence. It can only be used for contradicting or corroborating the author of the same. When the F.I.R. has been lodged after inordinate delay of 24 days by a person who is not the eye-witness such F.I.R. cannot be given any weightage. Total absence of external injury upon the deceased in the post-mortem examination demolishes prosecution’s case completely. All the allegations in the F.I.R. are oral while the case of the petitioner is based on documentary evidence. The story of the neglect, torture and harassment is ex facie false. There was no demand of dowry soon before the death of the wife of the petitioner and in such case prosecution under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act does not arise. The right to personal liberty as enshrined in Articles 21 and 22 (1) of the Constitution of India is well guaranteed to protect the interest of the person in such situation. The allegation in the F.I.R. is so vague and inherently probable that it would be expedient to quash the F.I.R. and further pleased not to arrest the petitioner or take any action on the basis of such F.I.R.

5. The petitioner, in effect, wanted to take shelter of the ratio of AIR 1994 SC 1349, Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. and others but it is to be remembered that principle was made applicable in a different situation when a person was illegally taken into the custody. However, the case before us was hotly contested not only by the State but also by the complainant/respondent No. 4. Even when the judgment was reserved for delivery, an application was taken out by the respondent No. 4 under Article 215 of the Constitution of India against this writ petitioner which was dismissed with certain directions. In any event we are not presently concerned with such application but with the merit of the writ petition.

6. In any event the case has