The absence of medical evidence and post-mortem reports precludes establishing a prima facie case for homicide, raising doubts about the informant's motives.

JUDGMENT :

MAYANK KUMAR JAIN, J.

1. Heard Sri Amit Daga, learned counsel for applicants, Mrs. Abha Gupta, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

2. Present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the criminal complaint dated 31.03.2016 as well as the entire proceedings registered in pursuance thereof as criminal complaint case no. 6440 of 2021 (CNR No. UPJP040115332016, initially numbered as criminal complaint case no. 399 of 2016), Bhanu Pratap vs. Chandrajeet & others, under Sections 302/149, 325, 201 I.P.C., P.S. Sarai Khwaja, District Jaunpur, pending before the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur, including the summoning order dated 28.09.2023. It is also prayed to stay further proceedings of the aforesaid case during the pendency of the present application.

3. The brief facts of the prosecution case as set out in the F.I.R. are that:-

3.1. Opposite party no. 2 lodged an F.I.R. against the applicants stating therein that the marriage of his daughter Shashiprabha was solemnized on 09.07.1999 with Chandrajeet Prajapati. Shashiprabha was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the accused persons. Out of the wedlock, two children were born. When Shashiprabha was living with the informant in her maternal house, her husband used to frequently visit Kanpur. Her husband continued to take financial assistance from the informant. On 19.05.2014, Shashiprabha and her daughters were sent back with the applicant when he promised to keep her happy.

3.2. On the night of 10.06.2014, applicants forcibly administered Shashiprabha some medicines and strangulated her. When she became unconscious under the influence of these medicines, she was beaten up by a rod to death. The applicants got her admitted to Pragya Hospital and had taken money from the informant. The two daughters of Shashiprabha, namely, Himanshi and Divyanshi are the eyewitnesses of the incident.

3.3. The informant had seen the injuries on the person of his daughter. He attempted to lodge a report with the Police Station. The concerned S.H.O. hurled abuses at him and did not conduct the post-mortem of the deceased.

3.4. The informant approached this Court and filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. no. 2440 of 2015. Pursuant to the order passed in this application, the first information was lodged as crime no. 673 of 2015 under Sections 302, 201 I.P.C.

4. On the basis of aforementioned FIR, the investigation was set into motion. After the investigation, the story of the prosecution was found to be false and not supported by any medical, inquest, and post-mortem report. The investigating officer submitted the final report. The first informant filed a protest petition. The learned court concerned vide its order dated 23.08.2017, rejected the final report and the investing officer was directed to conduct further investigation in the matter.

5. In furtherance to the investigation, the investigation officer, recorded the statements of the witnesses as well the applicants. He again submitted the final report and initiated proceedings under section 182 I.P.C. against the first informant.

6. The first informant filed a protest petition which was treated as a complaint. Statement of the first informant was recorded u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and statements of witnesses such as Himanshi Prajapati (daughter of deceased), Sushma Prajapati, Seema Prajapati (sisters), Mewalal Prajapati, Doodhnath Prajapati (Uncles), Jitendra Kumar prajapati (brother) were recorded u/s 202 Cr.P.C.

7. The learned Magistrate, on the basis of primary oral evidence, vide order dated 28.09.2023 summoned the applicants to face trial under Sections 302/ 149, 325 and 201 IPC.

8. Sri Amit Daga, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that Shashiprabha died on 10.06.2014 as a result of medical contingency. The first information report has been lodged after eight months of the incident by the informant. At the time of the trea