The court's inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code should be exercised sparingly and with caution, and the power of quashing should be exercised only in the 'rarest of rare cases'. The court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint.

JUDGMENT :

ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.

1. The applicant-accused Smt. Poonam Bhagat, mother-in-law of the deceased, invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) to quash the charge-sheet dated 18.05.2021 and summoning order dated 25.05.2021, passed in Criminal Case No. 2378 of 2021, State vs. Shivam Bhagat alias Aisvarya and Others, pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar.

2. Facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that the informant-Mahendra Gautam, father of the deceased, lodged a First Information Report that the marriage of his daughter, namely, Smt. Yashika Gautam, was solemnized with the co-accused Shivam Bhagat on 09.12.2020. After marriage, the present applicant along with other co-accused persons started harassing and torturing her for the demand of dowry in the shape of Audi car. On 31.12.2000, the present applicant along with other co-accused persons had beaten up his daughter and kicked her out of the house. He had admitted his daughter to Dev Bhoomi Hospital, Haridwar. After a few days, his daughter’s husband, co-accused, apologized and took her back with him. Even after that, her daughter was harassed and tortured by these persons for the demand of Audi car. On 23.02.2021 at around 8:30 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. his daughter informed her mother on phone that her life is in danger, and, these people are harassing her demanding car and money. On 24.02.2021, at around 3:30 p.m. a call of his daughter’s husband Shivam from Mobile No. 9627375554 came to his son, Dhruva Gautam, and he (Shivam) asked him to come along with his father. The informant along with his son immediately reached the applicant’s house. Seeing them, the present applicant left the house. They saw that Shivam Bhagat was in the room and the daughter of the informant was lying on the bed in a dead state. There were wounds and bruises on her neck and body.

3. The First Information Report was registered at 15:28 hrs. on 25.02.2021 against the present applicant and co-accused persons. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet is filed.

4. Subsequent to the submission of the charge-sheet, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar took cognizance and passed the impugned summoning order against the present applicant under Section 304-B of IPC.

5. Heard Mrs. Pushpa Joshi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Chetna Latwal, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Lalit Miglani, learned AGA for the State.

6. The learned Senior Advocate appearing for the applicant submitted that the applicant, aged about 52 years, has been falsely implicated; on the date of the incident, i.e. on 24.02.2021, the applicant was in a political rally in Roorkee along with several other party members; the entire event of the said political rally was covered and a post was uploaded on social media, where the applicant can be seen along with other party members; the applicant had sent a written application to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Haridwar, stating therein that she was in Roorkee, when the incident took place; the deceased had hung herself; members of her parental house were informed, but, instead of taking the body to the hospital, the family members of the deceased assaulted them and vandalized the house.

7. The learned Senior Advocate argued that there were healthy relationship between the present applicant and the deceased, and, there was no stress between them, which can be seen in WhatsApp chats, annexed to the present application. The learned Senior Advocate submitted that as per the entry in the Case Diary, at the time of the incident, the phone location of the applicant was in Jawaharpur and after that the location was in Roorkee. The learned Senior Advocate further argued that the entire impugned proceedings are total abuse of process and is an example of the misuse of the provision.

8. Mr. Lalit Miglani, the learned counsel for the State, oppose