Sukhbir Singh v. State of Uttaranchal

Shri Rajendra Kotiyal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Shri Prabhakar Joshi, Brief Holder for respondents. Hon(cid:146)ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. By means of this petition, the petitioner has sought quashing of the proceedings of criminal case No. 247 of 2004, State Vs. Sukbhir Singh and others, relating to offence punishable under Section 306 I.P.C., pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the papers on record.

3. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 2-Rajendra Singh, lodged a First Information Report, registered as crime No. 107 of 2003, 2 against the petitioners-Sukhbir Singh, Gurdayal Singh, Smt. Manjeet Kaur and Gurpreet Kaur, relating to offence punishable under Section 306 I.P.C. In the First Information Report, it is alleged that on 14.04.2002, engagement for marriage of Inderjeet Kaur (deceased), daughter of complainant, took place with Sukhbir Singh (present petitioner No. 1), son of Gurdayal Singh (petitioner No. 2). It is alleged in the First Information Report that after engagement, the petitioners started delaying the marriage and petitioner No. 2-Gurdayal Singh, made demand of dowry of Rs. 2,00,000/- on the pretext that he has to get married his own daughter Aman Kaur for which he needs expenses. Thereafter, Inderjeet Kaur (deceased) got disturbed. According complainant, he got sent Rs. 10,000/- through one Sarbjeet Singh at the time of marriage of Aman Kaur (daughter of Gurdayal Singh) but he was insulted and sent back. This further disturbed Inderjeet Kaur (deceased). It is stated in the First Information Report that the petitioners after marriage of Aman Kaur refused to talk on the marriage settled between Inderjeet Kaur and Sukhbir Singh. Ultimately, Panchayat was called on 10.03.2003 to settle the dispute between the parties. But the petitioners did not pay any heed to the request of Panchayat. As such, Inderjeet Kaur after being felt insulted at the hands of the petitioners due to demand of dowry, committed suicide on 16.03.2003. After cremation of the deceased, complainant lodged First Information 3 Report on 19.03.2003. After investigation, police has submitted charge-sheet against all the four petitioners namely Sukhbir Singh and his father Gurdayal Singh, mother Manjeet Kaur and sister Gurpreet Kaur.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as per the prosecution case itself no post mortem examination was got done after death of Inderjeet Kaur nor unnatural death was reported to the police, as such, it cannot be said that it is a case of suicide. Death might have occurred due to some disease (natural death) or accident. In this connection, attention of this Court is drawn to the definition of the word (cid:147)suicide(cid:148) as given in the Concise Oxford Dictionary 9th Edition. And it is argued that suicide cannot be presumed and there must be finding on the basis of the evidence of intention of the person, who died. Had it been a simple case of mere allegation on the part of the complainant without getting the post mortem done, argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners could have been accepted. But from the perusal of the papers on record, it appears that there is suicide note allegedly left by the deceased before her death. Copy of said suicide note is annexed as annexure-6 to the petition, which reads as under:- (cid:147)Jh xqjn;ky flag flag lr Jh vdkyA 4 rqeus esjs lkFk dkSu ls tUe dk cnyk fy;k gS eSus rks lkspk Hkh u Fkk fd eSa tSls MsMh ds ;gk ij NksM+ dj tk¯xh ogk ij Hkh oSls gh MsMh fey tk;sxssA ij ’kk;n vkidks MsMh ugha ’kSrku dguk pkfg, tks nwljks dh csfV;k dks tkuoj le>rs gSA eSaus vidk ;k vikds ifjokj dk D;k fcxkM+k Fkk tks vkius gesa /kks[kk fn;k esajs ek&cki ;k eSaus vkidks D;k nq[k fn;k Fkk tks vkius esjh ftUnxh ujd cuk nhA vkius dHkh ;s ugha lkspk dh eSa Hkh nks csfV;ksa dk cki gWwA eSa vkidks ,d vPNk balku ekurh Fkh ysfdu eq>s D;k irk Fkk fd vkius vius psgjs ij vPNkbZ dk eq[kkSVk yxk j[kk gSA vkidk vlyh :Ik rks dqN vkSj gh gSA Hkxoku u djs tks vkius esjs lkFk fd;k og dksbZ vkidh csVh ds lkFk Hkh djsA Jherh xqjn;ky th] eSa tc Hkh vkils feyh eq>s vki fcYdqy vPNh ugha yxh vkidks cgqr ?ke.M gS fd esjk yM+dk vdsyk vkSj lqUnj gSA nqfu;k esa vdsys vkSj lqUnj ls lqUnj yMds iMs gSA ij rq>s dqN T;knk gh xqeku gSA dksbZ ckr ugha rw ogh vius yMds dh ’kknh djuk tks rq>s djksMks :Ik;s] dkj] tehu vkSj ngst ns ftlls fd rsjh Hkw[k feV tk;s rsjh tSlh ykyph vkSjr dks dksbZ ,slh yMdh feys tks rsjh ftUnxh gjke dj ns rq>s cgqr ?ke.M gS vius Hkkb;ks Ikj fd cgqr vPNs ?kj rsjh yMdh dk fj(cid:146)rk djok fn;k dksbZ ckr ugha Hkxoku ds ?kj nsj gS va/ksj ughaA u tkus dc D;k gks tk;s rwus esjs HkkbZ dk ipklh vkneh vkSjrks ds lkeus tyhy fd;k oks esjs eqg dks pqi jgk ojuk rsjh pqfV;k idM dj ?kqek nsrk vxj eSa ej x;h rks esjh ekSr dh ftEesnkj rw gSA esjh dkfry rw gksxhA lq[kohj& eSa vkidks cgqr vPNk vkSj le>nkj yMdk le>rh FkhA vkius tc Hkh dqN dgk eSaus ekuk dksbZ vPNkbZ cqjkbZ ugha ns[khA 5 eq>s irk Fkk fd vkids fny esa [kksV gS ’kk;n esjs I;kj esa gh dksbZ deh Fkh tks vkius eq>s /kks[kk fn;kA eSaus cgqr yksxks ls vkids ckjs esa mYVh lh/kh ckr lquh Fkh exj eSaus gj ckr dks vuns[kk fd;k cgqr pkykd gks rqe exj Hkxokj ls Mjks ftruk nq[k vkius eq>s fn;k gS vkidks mlls T;knk nq[k feysxk rqEgkjh ftUnxh cjckn gks tk;sxhA tks nwljks dks lrkrk gS og dHkh lq[kh ugha jgrkA rqe lc ykyph gks iSls ds Hkw[ks gks A ve‘rljh;s gksrs gh dehus gSA xqjizhr nsoh& vkius rks eklwe vkSj Hkksyh cudj esjk lc dqN Nhu fy;k pyks Hkxoku rks lc dqN ns[k jgk gSA ,eu nsoh&vki rks le>nkj vkSj lqy>h yxrh Fkh vki Hkh lkFk esa fey xbZ Hkxoku vkidks vkSj bUnzthr ohj th dks ges(cid:146)kk lq[kh j[ksA eSa oks fnu dHkh ugha Hkwy ldrh tc MsMh vki eq>s ns[kus gksVy esa vk;s Fks vkSj gkFk tksMdj dg jgs Fks fd ge Hkh yMfd;ksa okys gSA vc vkidh lQsn nkMh dgk xbZA eqYyk th ;s ysVj xqjn;kyflag ds ?kj ns nsuk rHkh esjh vkRek dks ’kkfUr feysxhA bUnzthr dkSj v(cid:146)kksdk QkeZ(cid:145)(cid:148) The aforesaid suicide note read with the statement of Harjeet Kaur (sister of the deceased) recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (copy of which is annexure-5 to the petition), this Court cannot say that criminal proceedings, challenged before this Court are abuse of process of law against the petitioners.

5. For the reasons as discussed above, without expressing any opinion as to the final merits of the 6 case, this petition is dismissed with observation that if the petitioners surrender before the court concerned, their bail application shall be heard and disposed of without unreasonable delay. Dt:10.03.2010 Sweta (Prafulla C. Pant, J.)