IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on : 08.09.2025 Pronounced on : 31.10.2025 Santosh Rani @Jaspreet Kaur & Ors.

..... Petitioners VERSUS State of Punjab & Anr.

..... Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Argued by: Mr. A.P.S. Maan, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Eklavya Darshi, DAG Punjab.

Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate for the respondent No.2.

*****

SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.

1. The petitioners, who are facing trial for the commission of offence punishable under Section 306 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, have approached this Court by filing a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, whereby the quashing of FIR No.263 dated 16.07.2020, Police Station Civil Lines, Batala District Gurdaspur, and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom, has been sought to be quashed. 2. In nut-shell, the facts emerging from record are that in the abovementioned FIR, wherein the petitioners have been named as accused, was registered on the statement of Sukhjinder Kaur, W/o Paramjit Singh, hereinafter being referred to as the ‘complainant’ only. In her statement, the complainant stated that the marriage of her son, Bhupinderpal Singh, with Jaspreet Kaur @ Santosh Rani, i.e., petitioner No.1, was solemnized about five years ago, and out of abovesaid wedlock, a daughter, Paramdeep Kaur, was born. The complainant further alleged that, after the marriage, the relationship between her son and the daughter-in-law became sour, and as a result thereof, the petitioner No.1 left her matrimonial home about three and a half years ago, for her parental home. The complainant also stated that numerous efforts were made to bring the petitioner No.1 back to her matrimonial home, but any of such efforts was not successful.

3. According to complainant, on previous day, i.e., on 15.07.2020, her son had visited his in-laws’ house to bring back his wife, but she did not return and reportedly forced him to leave her parental home. It has been alleged by the complainant that, due to the aforesaid conduct of his wife, the petitioner No.1, and her parents, i.e. the petitioners No.2 and 3, her son Bhupinderpal Singh, felt harassed, humiliated, and cheated, and as a result of that in order to commit suicide he consumed a poisonous substance and passed away.

4. It is the case of the prosecution that in view of abovementioned complaint, formal FIR in this case, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 306 and 34 of IPC was lodged, and the investigation taken up.

5. In the instant petition, it has been alleged by the petitioners that the abovementioned FIR has been lodged on false allegations and that, without any fault on their part, they are being prosecuted for the commission of the said offence. According to petitioners, the FIR has been lodged with vexatious and mala fide motives, in which they have been wrongly implicated as accused. However, it has not been disputed by the petitioner that there existed a relationship between the petitioners and the deceased. However, the petitioners have alleged that, due to strained relationship between the petitioner No. 1 and the deceased, a petition for divorce was filed by the petitioner No.1 in the Courts at Kapurthala.

6. According to petitioners, the FIR in question is nothing but a concoction and fabrication of story by the complainant, the mother of the deceased, with a motive to take revenge from the petitioners, and to pressurize them not to claim their share in the estate of deceased. The petitioners have further submitted that even the allegations contained in the FIR do not prima facie disclose the commission of any offence punishable under Sections 306 and 34 of the IPC, and therefore, the registration of FIR in respect to the aforesaid offences amounts to an abuse of process of law.

7. The petitioners have further alleged that when the marriage of petitioner No.1 was solemnized with the deceased, adequate dowry befitting to their status wa