By the Court.—This petition seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing F.I.R./Case Crime No. 180 of 2015, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Majhila, District Hardoi.

2. As per the allegations made in the impugned F.I.R., which has been lodged at the instance of respondent No. 4, brother of the deceased, the deceased was married to Phullo about four years ago. Demand for dowry was made by Phullo, Saleem, Bhurey sons of Wasid, wife of Saleem, wife of Bhurey and wife of Wasid.

3. Petitioner is the wife of Wasid and is also known as Billa, as is admitted by the investigating officer in counter-affidavit.

4. After narration of the allegations for demand of dowry, it has been alleged that on 24.7.2015, all the accused persons with common intention sprinkled kerosene oil on sister of the complainant and put fire. Thereafter, the victim Reena was taken to Shahabad hospital and thereafter to Hardoi hospital. When the complainant came to know of this, he reached Hardoi hospital. On 24.7.2015 night, Reena died.

5. Dying declaration of the deceased has been filed alongwith counter-affidavit of the investigating agency dated 19.12.2015. As per the dying declaration, her husband did not work and was a gambler and was addicted to drugs. Demand for colour T.V., Cooler, deck, Refrigerator etc. was made by the husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law. The victim was given beatings with danda and belt. Brother in laws (Jeth and Devar) also used to abuse the victim and give her beatings.

6. It has further been stated by the victim in her dying declaration that today at 10 O’ Clock, her husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law gave beatings with danda and belt and thereafter put her to fire. When the victim stated that don’t do this, she would go to her maternal home, her husband poured kerosene oil and put her to fire. At that time, the father in law and mother in law were also present. The door was bolted from outside. On her raising alarm, villagers came and put out the fire by pouring water. The villagers suggested that the victim should be taken to the hospital. The husband, however, stated that let her die.

7. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is 60 years old and 100% blind. The petitioner is the mother-in-law of the deceased.

8. The fact that the petitioner is 100% blind, has been admitted after verification by the Investigating officer. This fact has been mentioned in para 3 of the short counter-affidavit dated 26.10.2015. Learned counsel for the complainant has also not disputed this fact.

9. In counter-affidavit dated 19.12.2015, it has been stated that the neighbours of the deceased have not given any clear statement in regard to torture given to the deceased by the petitioner. It has however been stated that the petitioner could take care of her daily chores.

10. Be that as it may, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on judgement rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604, to say that the impugned criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed.

11. Learned counsel for the complainant, who is author of the F.I.R. and brother of the deceased, namely Shri Alok Kumar Srivastava has taken a fair stand that respondent No. 4 is not serious in prosecuting the petitioner. The petitioner be dropped from the array of accused. Respondent No. 4 would have no objection if the petitioner is not prosecuted.

12. We have considered the rival contentions.

13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India while taking notice of various judgements on the issue in Ch. Bhajan Lal’s case(supra), has summed up as follows in paragraph 108. The said para reads as under :

“108. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions rela