ORDER
K.S. Gupta, J.
1. Sole point which falls for consideration in this petition is whether the statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 14th October 1989 of Roshan Lal, filing of separate charge-sheet and framing of charge under section 306 IPC against Shakil Ahmed, co-accused in respect of the same incident dated 14th October 1989 would make the petitioner-accused entitle to have FIR No. 293/89 and the further proceedings pursuant thereto pending before an Additional Sessions Judge, quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
2. As is borne out from the charge-sheet filed under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. said FIR No. 293/89 came to be registered on 14th October 1989 in the following circumstances. On receipt of a copy of D.D. No. 15-A SI Ram Kishan along with Constable Jagvir Singh reached House No. 54/55, Friends Enclave, Sultanpuri, Delhi and there he found the body of Smt. Sunita lying in burnt condition in a room on the first floor. SI Ram Kishan recorded the statement of Amar Singh, father of the deceased to the effect that marriage of the deceased with Ramesh Kumar, petitioner was solemnized on 19th February, 1988. He spent about Rs. 2.5 lakhs in the marriage. Rs. 90,000/- were also invested in fixed deposit jointly in the names of the deceased and petitioner. Since the inception of marriage relations between the deceased and petitioner were not cordial. Petitioner used to beat the deceased and insist upon her to bring Rs. 2 lakhs from her parents. Petitioner also made demand for this amount to him for setting up a factory. That day around 9 AM he received telephone call from the petitioner in regard to his daughter having died due to burns. After receipt of the message he has come to the house of the in-laws of her daughter and he has strong suspicion that she has been burnt by the petitioner. On the basis of this statement said FIR No. 293/89 was registered under section 498A/304B IPC.
3. During investigation Smt. Ashrafi Devi, mother of the petitioner handed over certain documents which were seized vide a memo dated 14th October 1989 by SI Ram Kishan. Beside sending the body of deceased for post mortem examination said SI also recorded the statements of the PWs includ-ing aforesaid Roshan Lal. After completing investigation charge-sheet under sections 498A/302/304B/34 IPC was filed against the petitioner, Harish Chand (father) and Smt. Ashrafi Devi on 20th December, 1989.
4. Charge-sheet based on the said FIR under section 306 IPC was simulta-neously filed against aforementioned Shakil Ahmed.
5. Charges under section 498-A/304B IPC were framed against the petition-er, Harish Chand and Smt. Ashrafi Devi on 3rd June, 1994. Charge under section 306 IPC was also framed against Shakil Ahmed on 7th June, 1994 by an Additional Sessions judge. Feeling aggrieved Harish Chand and Smt. Ashrafi Devi filed Crl. Revision No. 172/94 against the framing of charges which was allowed by this court by the order dated 11th October, 1995 holding that the charge under the above heads could not have been framed against them merely on suspicion and they were discharged.
6. It was contended by Sh. K.B. Andley appearing for the petitioner that it was accused Shakil Ahmed who compelled Smt. Sunita to commit suicide, by bringing the material regarding his love affairs with her before marriage to the notice of her in-laws and on accused Shakil Ahmed being charged with the offence under section 306 IPC by the Additional Sessions Judge, said FIR No. 293/89 and the criminal proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioner deserve to be set aside. As a part of this submission my attention was drawn by Sh. Andley to the statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 14th February, 1989 referred to above of Roshan Lal.
7. It is in the statement of Roshan Lal which requires to be set out in detail that on 20th February, 1989 around 11 AM Shakil Ahmed came to his shop and enquired about Ramesh Kumar, (petitioner).He told him that his house is located ahead near pulia. Shakil Ahmed again came to his shop on 22nd February, 1989 at about 2.30 PM and told him that he had not been able to locate the house of Ramesh. He took Shakil Ahmed along and came back to the shop after pointing out his house. Ten days thereafter Shakil Ahmed again came to him and told that Ramesh and Sunita did not meet him as they were away to some place. He offered a cup of tea to Shakil Ahmed who showed to him, his photographs with Sunita as also the letters and photostat copies of the papers regarding his marriage with her in court. He also told him that Sunita had spoiled his life by remarrying and he too would spoil her life. He advised him not to spoil the family of anyone. He did not disclose these facts either to Ramesh or any member of his family as it would have destroyed his house. Shakil Ahmed thereafter again came and showed to him his photographs with Sunita in compromising position after taking them out from the dicky of his scooter, which he tore. Again towards the end of April 1989 Shakil Ahmed came and handed over to him the photo-graphs and photostat copies of the certificate of marriage etc with a request to deliver them to Ramesh or he would destroy his life. He got harassed and delivered to Ramesh that material. Thereafter, a Panchayat was held in between the parents of Ramesh and Sunita. On 14th October 1989 in the evening when he reached home he came to know that the wife of Ramesh has died due to burning. If Shakil Ahmed would not have told about his affairs with Sunita to her in-laws she would not have committed suicide.
8. Needless to repeat that the details of the documents handed over by said Smt. Ashrafi Devi to SI Ram Kishan are noted in the seizure memo dated 14th October, 1989 placed on the file of the trial court. Those documents include the Photostat copies of inland letter dated 4th June, 1989 sent by Sunita to the petitioner, senior secondary school leaving certificate dated May 1988 pertaining to Sunita, affidavits of Sunita and Shakil Ahmed at-tested by a Notary Public, Delhi on 27th January, 1989, decision of the Panchayat dated 9th May, 1989 and a combined photograph of Sunita and Shakil Ahmed. Both the said affidavits indicate that Sunita and Shakil Ahmed were having love affairs and they had decided to marry with each other. Said decision of the Panchayat dated 9th May, 1989 goes to show that in the Panchayat wherein the father of Sunita and persons from the side of petitioner had participated, it was amicably settled that if the petitioner agrees to take Sunita back to his house the decision of Panchayat may be treated as annulled and in the event of divorce, the petitioner would return the dowry articles beside paying money through bank draft to Sunita. In the said letter dated 4th June, 1989 which obviously was sent by Sunita to the petitioner after the decision of Panchayat, she had apologized about her past affairs and requested him to take her back in the matrimonial home. At the time this letter was sent Sunita was staying with her parents. She seems to have thereafter joined the petitioner in the matrimonial home where she committed suicide on 14th October, 1989. That being the factual position, there was remote possibility of Smt. Sunita having committed suicide because of leakage of information regarding her love affairs before marriage with said Shakil Ahmed. Thus, neither the said statement of Roshan Lal regarding cause of death which is in the nature of his personal opinion nor the framing of charge under section 306 IPC against Shakil Ahmed, would entitle the petitioner to have the pending criminal proceedings quashed as claimed. That apart, legal position in the matter of quashing of FIR stands settled by the Supreme Court in the decision in State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 237 and the following observations made in the said decision which are relevant read thus:-
“We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the Court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.”
9. It is pertinent to note that the statement of Amar Singh, father of the deceased which forms the basis of said FIR No. 293/89 under section 498A/304B IPC, prima facie, discloses the commission of those offences by the petitioner. Petition thus deserves to be dismissed being without merit.
10. Consequently, the petition is dismissed.