JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri Jai Shanker and Shri O.P. Rai, counsel for the applicants and Shri Vivek Kumar Singh, counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2, learned AGA and perused the record.

2. The present application under Section 482 CrPC has been filed seeking interference of this Court for quashing the chargesheet dated 7.5.2010 as well as the proceedings of Case No. 1687 of 2010 (State Vs. Vikashh and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 76 of 2010, under Section 306 IPC, Police Station Partarpur, District Meerut pending before Special CJM, Meerut.

3. The facts, in brief, are that an First Information Report was lodged by the Opposite Party No. 2 against the applicants and was registered as Case Crime No. 76 of 2010 under Section 306 IPC, Police Station Partarpur, District Meerut. In the said FIR, it was alleged that the marriage ceremony of the daughter of the informant Km. Anu was fixed with the Applicant No. 2 and the marriage was scheduled to be held on 16.2.2010. It was further stated that on 25.7.2009, the engagement ceremony of the Applicant No. 2 was held with the daughter of the Opposite Party No. 2, on the said date, the Applicants No. 2, 3 and 4 had come to the house of the Opposite Party No. 2 and while departure, they were given gifts, clothes and Rs. 1,000/-each. On the said date, they had demanded one Santro Car, Air Conditioner, Rs. 5 lacs and 20 Tolas of gold for marriage. It was further alleged that on various occasions, the applicants had demanded dowry by calling on the mobile numbers as mentioned in the FIR. Phone calls were also made on the mobile number of the daughter of the Opposite Party No. 2. It is further stated that the Opposite Party No. 2 had on various occasion mentioned the fact regarding the demand of dowry to the mediators of the marriage namely Pramod son of Om Pal, however, Pramod expressed his inability to help the Opposite Party No. 2. It was further stated that after two months of the engagement, the brother of the Opposite Party No. 2, Shaukin and Yogindra along with Prem Singh, Mahak Singh, Sudhir, resident of village Saidpur had gone to the house of the Applicant No. 1 where in their presence, all the four applicants asked for dowry. It was further stated that Vikash, Applicant No. 2 used to threaten the daughter of the Opposite Party No. 2, consequent whereto she got scared. It was further stated that on 1.2.2010, in the night, Vikashh, Applicant No. 2 had called the daughter of Opposite Party No. 2 and had threatened her and further demanded dowry. On the same night, at about 12 O’ clock, on account of threat, by the applicants, she immolated herself. On 2.2.2010, in the morning, the daughter of the Opposite Party No. 2 was shifted to Safdarjung Hospital, Delhi where she, unfortunately, died. Postmortem was conducted on the deceased Km. Anu and after performing her last rites, the present FIR was lodged on 6.2.2010.

4. After lodging of the FIR, investigation was carried out. The post-mortem report is on record as Annexure No. 2 and the cause of death has been shown to be ‘burn shock’. A death summary drawn by the doctor at Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi is also on record which indicates that patient was burnt (suicidal attempt) when she poured kerosene oil over herself and lit herself on fire. It is further recorded that (as disclosed by the deceased) her marriage was due after 15 days and her in-laws wanted dowry, as a result of which, she took this step. The condition of the patient was critical with 100% deep thermal burns. She was administered life saving drugs and despite all efforts, the patient died on 2.2.2010 at about 4.30 am. During the course of investigation, spot inspection report was prepared by the Investigating Officer and the statements of various person were recorded under Section 161 CrPC, which are contained in Annexure Nos. 3 to the application.

5. The statement of Opposite Party No. 2 was recorded in which he stated before the Investigating Officer that Vikash was