CRM No. M-5146 of 2009 1
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB &
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
CRM No. M-5146 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of decision: 24.03.2009
Amarjit Kaur and others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA
Present: Ms. Puja Chopra, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Rajan Gupta, J.
This petition has been filed for quashing of the complaint,
Annexure P-1 dated 27th October, 2006 as well as summoning order,
Annexure P-5 dated 9th July, 2008, passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st
Class, Ludhiana.
The complaint was lodged on the allegations that Devender
Singh, son of the complainants No.1 & 2, committed suicide by jumping
in a canal due to insult and humiliation at the hands of his in-laws. The
complainant examined five witnesses in preliminary evidence. After
recording their evidence, the Magistrate summoned the accused to face
trial under Sections 306 & 120-B IPC. Aggrieved by the said order, the
petitioners have preferred the instant petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the
allegations levelled in the complaint and submitted that petitioner No.3
has been summoned by the trial court despite the fact that there is no
CRM No. M-5146 of 2009 2
allegation in the complaint against her. This apart, the counsel has
emphasized that the deceased was already in a state of depression and
thus the petitioners could not be blamed for him having committed
suicide. He has also referred to a personal diary maintained by the
deceased, Annexure P-6 and submitted that a reading of the same would
show that the deceased had nothing against the petitioners.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and gone
through the record annexed with the petition.
It appears that an FIR was lodged regarding the death of
Devender Singh. A case was registered under Sections 306 & 120-B
IPC at Police Station Division No.6, Ludhiana vide FIR No.143 dated
3rd July, 2006. However, the police submitted cancellation report in the
same. The complainant, however, protested and stated before the court
that he had preferred a separate complaint before the Magistrate which
may be treated as protest petition. The trial court thereafter allowed the
complainant to examine his witnesses in support of his allegations.
After being satisfied with the preliminary evidence led by the
complainant (father of the deceased), the court summoned the
petitioners to face trial under Sections 306 & 120-B IPC. The counsel
has raised pleas before this court which are basically factual in nature
and can be examined only after some evidence led before the trial court.
In this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., it is not possible for the court
to return a finding regarding the state of mind of the deceased, the
contents of the personal diary maintained by him and the allegations
CRM No. M-5146 of 2009 3
levelled in the complaint. As regards delay in lodging the complaint, it
is evident that an FIR was lodged immediately after dead-body of the
deceased was recovered from Gill Canal, Simlapuri. The instant
complaint was separately instituted by the complainant on 27th October,
2006. It is obvious that there was no delay as such on the part of the
complainant in informing the police about the occurrence. The present
complaint, which has been allowed to be proceeded as a protest-petition
in the aforesaid FIR, cannot be said to suffer from vice of undue delay.
In view of the above discussion, I do not find it a fit case
for interference in inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482
Cr.P.C. The petition is hereby dismissed.
(RAJAN GUPTA)
JUDGE
March 24, 2009
‘rajpal’