JUDGMENT :

UMESH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

1. Heard Sri Ayank Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Pankaj Kumar Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. The applicant has filed the present Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the entire proceeding under Sections 498-A, 504, 304-B, 306 I.P.C. and Section ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act, arising out of Crime No. 45 of 2021, Police Station Daurala, District Meerut, pending in the Court of C.J.M. Meerut on the ground that the daughter of the informant opposite party no. 2, who was the wife of the applicant committed suicide after institution of divorce petition by the applicant. According to the F.I.R, the marriage of the daughter of opposite party no. 2 was solemnized with the applicant on 19.11.2018. The family members were not satisfied with the dowry and they were pressurising the deceased (Mohini) for providing a car in dowry, which could not be fulfilled, hence she was ousted from her matrimonial house on 04.06.2020 and when she came to know about the divorce petition, she committed suicide. According to the applicant, the F.I.R has been lodged after a lapse of a week without any explanation for the delay in lodging the F.I.R, thereafter the I.O. started investigation and recorded the statement of the informant and prepared site plan. As per the postmortem report, the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage as a result of anti-mortem injury. In the F.I.R, the complainant has specifically averred that his daughter has committed suicide. The I.O. recorded the statement of the witnesses - Kushal Pal, Sattya Pal and Shyamveer. From the version of the prosecution story, only Section 306 I.P.C. is attracted. But after the investigation, the I.O. submitted the charge-sheet under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 304-B I.PC and ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. The I.O. has overlooked the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in several judgments, wherein the implication of the entire family had been forbidden. The I.O. has investigated the case in a very casual manner. Sections 306 and 304-B I.P.C. are two different Sections, which cannot sail together.

4. The present case is the best example of misuse of the procedure. The Sessions Court has framed an alternative charge under Section 306 I.P.C. alongwith Section 304-B I.P.C. From the bare perusal of the F.I.R, no offence under the aforesaid Sections are made out. The applicant is wholly innocent and has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case. He did not demand any dowry and did not commit any cruelty or assault against the deceased. The prosecution is based on malicious intentions and is not sustainable in the eye of law. The applicant has good moral character and has no criminal history, if the present proceeding is not quashed, he would suffer irreparable loss and injury, hence the proceeding of the S.T. No. 105 of 2022 mentioned above be set aside.

5. The applicant has annexed all the relevant papers with the application.

6. Heard and perused the record.

7. During the argument, the learned counsel for the applicant did not argue on all of the aspects and facts mentioned in the application, but has argued only on the point that if a charge is framed under Section 304-B I.P.C. then no alternative charge under Section 306 I.P.C. could be framed.

8. This Court is of the view that if the charge-sheet has submitted under Section 304-B of the I.P.C. an alternative charge under Section 302 I.P.C. alongwith the main charge under Section 304-B I.P.C. shall be framed but no alternative charge should be framed under Section 306 I.P.C. The reason behind this is that if in a criminal case a charge under Section 304-B I.P.C. is being framed and the prosecution succeeds in proving the case beyond reasonable doubt, the accused may be convicted under Section 304-B and if the trial court comes to the conclusion that it is a case of abatement to commit suicide, the court can very well punish the accused under Section 306 I.P.C. even in the