High Court · 2025

of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 161 of 2024, pending in the court of Sessions Judge, Firozabad.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are in-laws, against whom there are no charges of dowry demand. No evidence has been given by the informant regarding mental or physical harassment of the deceased, which has resulted in her death. Apart from the present first information report, there is no previous complaint or FIR regarding harassment of the deceased by the applicants raising additional dowry demand.

4. In the version of FIR, it has been alleged by the informant, who is brother of the deceased, that her sister was lying dead on the bed and there were marks of injury on her body, whereas in the postmortem report and Panchayatnama, there is no mark of injury. He further submits that in CD Parcha No. 9 – statement of Smt. Pratiksha, sister-in-law of the deceased, it has been stated that her Bhabhi had received a phone call regarding birthday of the son of brother-in-law of Sanjay Kumar (informant)/ brother of the deceased, after which there was some altercation between her brother and bhabhi of the deceased. After the said dispute between the two, her brother Rajat came out of the room and her bhabhi (deceased) locked herself inside the room and hanged herself. She has also stated about the conduct of her bhabhi (deceased) stating that whenever she had some dispute with her husband, she used to lock herself inside the room. In one of the incidents, she had broken the phone after becoming angry. All the family members took care of her bhabhi and no one had ever demanded any additional dowry demand.

5. The statements of Sub-Inspector - Trimohan Singh and Prabal Pratap Singh have also been relied upon, wherein they have stated that on 20/21 March, 2024 they were on duty and received a phone call from Mohalla Shambhu Nagar, wherein it was informed that Vineeta, wife of Rajat has locked herself inside her room and was not opening the room. After receiving the said information, they reached the place where number of persons have gathered and the police personnel informed through 112 were also present there. After reaching the spot, they broke the door and found that the deceased was hanging with fan. The aforesaid police personnel, with the help of other persons present there, took down the body and the same was sent for postmortem. Videography of the spot was also done.

6. From the aforesaid statement, it is clear that the deceased has committed suicide, therefore, no offence under the relevant sections is made out and the charges have wrongly been framed under Sections 304-B IPC along with 302 IPC.

7. Statement of Bichpati (cousin of the deceased) has also been annexed, who has stated about panchayat held thrice for raising additional dowry demand.

8. From the postmortem report, inquest report as well as statements of the witnesses and the police officials, who broke the door, it is quite clear that the deceased committed suicide, therefore, no offence under the relevant sections is made out and the charges have wrongly been framed without application of judicial mind.

9. Learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 as well as learned A.G.A. submit that the order rejecting discharge application has been passed on

04.10.2024, wherein it has been stated that the chargesheet has been submitted under the relevant sections when the death of the deceased has taken place at her in-laws' place. No evidence has been shown regarding the absence of the applicants at the time of incident at their residence. No specific averment is there in the statements of all the witnesses, that apart from the main door, there was no other entrance from which anybody could have entered the room.

10. Learned counsel for the opposite parties further submit that once the charges have already been framed, this Court cannot examine the veracity of the said order while exercising the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. He next contends that the issue of interference by High Court in the matters preferred after framing of charges has been dealt with in numerous cases. He has relied upon the judgements of the Supreme Court in the case of Sanghi Brothers (Indore) Pvt. Ltd. v. Sanjay Choudhary, AIR 2009 SC 9; Minakshi Bala v. Sudhir Kumar and others, (1994) 4 SCC 142; and Bhawna Bai Vs.Ghanshyam and others, 2020 (2) SCC 217, and judgement of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Mamta Gupta v. State of M.P. and another, 2022 SCC OnLine MP 4452.

11. If things are seen in natural way, the deceased is said to be habitual in locking herself inside the room, therefore, it was quite normal for the family members to break the door in case she was not opening it on the alleged date of incident. Calling police for opening door as well as presence of police personnel when 112 was dialed, creates suspicion and in such case when death of the deceased has taken place within seven years of marriage, offence under relevant section is made out. From the marks of several injuries on the body, death at the in-laws place, presumption is against the alleged accused persons, which cannot be seen here at this stage when the charges have already been framed.

12. In view of the above, this Court does not find any error in the order impugned. The application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. stands dismissed. Order Date :- 24.2.2025 DS DIGAMBER SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 161 of 2024, pending in the court of Sessions Judge, Firozabad.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are in-laws, against whom there are no charges of dowry demand. No evidence has been given by the informant regarding mental or physical harassment of the deceased, which has resulted in her death. Apart from the present first information report, there is no previous complaint or FIR regarding harassment of the deceased by the applicants raising additional dowry demand.

4. In the version of FIR, it has been alleged by the informant, who is brother of the deceased, that her sister was lying dead on the bed and there were marks of injury on her body, whereas in the postmortem report and Panchayatnama, there is no mark of injury. He further submits that in CD Parcha No. 9 – statement of Smt. Pratiksha, sister-in-law of the deceased, it has been stated that her Bhabhi had received a phone call regarding birthday of the son of brother-in-law of Sanjay Kumar (informant)/ brother of the deceased, after which there was some altercation between her brother and bhabhi of the deceased. After the said dispute between the two, her brother Rajat came out of the room and her bhabhi (deceased) locked herself inside the room and hanged herself. She has also stated about the conduct of her bhabhi (deceased) stating that whenever she had some dispute with her husband, she used to lock herself inside the room. In one of the incidents, she had broken the phone after becoming angry. All the family members took care of her bhabhi and no one had ever demanded any additional dowry demand.

5. The statements of Sub-Inspector - Trimohan Singh and Prabal Pratap Singh have also been relied upon, wherein they have stated that on 20/21 March, 2024 they were on duty and received a phone call from Mohalla Shambhu Nagar, wherein it was informed that Vineeta, wife of Rajat has locked herself inside her room and was not opening the room. After receiving the said information, they reached the place where number of persons have gathered and the police personnel informed through 112 were also present there. After reaching the spot, they broke the door and found that the deceased was hanging with fan. The aforesaid police personnel, with the help of other persons present there, took down the body and the same was sent for postmortem. Videography of the spot was also done.

6. From the aforesaid statement, it is clear that the deceased has committed suicide, therefore, no offence under the relevant sections is made out and the charges have wrongly been framed under Sections 304-B IPC along with 302 IPC.

7. Statement of Bichpati (cousin of the deceased) has also been annexed, who has stated about panchayat held thrice for raising additional dowry demand.

8. From the postmortem report, inquest report as well as statements of the witnesses and the police officials, who broke the door, it is quite clear that the deceased committed suicide, therefore, no offence under the relevant sections is made out and the charges have wrongly been framed without application of judicial mind.

9. Learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 as well as learned A.G.A. submit that the order rejecting discharge application has been passed on

04.10.2024, wherein it has been stated that the chargesheet has been submitted under the relevant sections when the death of the deceased has taken place at her in-laws' place. No evidence has been shown regarding the absence of the applicants at the time of incident at their residence. No specific averment is there in the statements of all the witnesses, that apart from the main door, there was no other entrance from which anybody could have entered the room.

10. Learned counsel for the opposite parties further submit that once the charges have already been framed, this Court cannot examine the veracity of the said order while exercising the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. He next contends that the issue of interference by High Court in the matters preferred after framing of charges has been dealt with in numerous cases. He has relied upon the judgements of the Supreme Court in the case of Sanghi Brothers (Indore) Pvt. Ltd. v. Sanjay Choudhary, AIR 2009 SC 9; Minakshi Bala v. Sudhir Kumar and others, (1994) 4 SCC 142; and Bhawna Bai Vs.Ghanshyam and others, 2020 (2) SCC 217, and judgement of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Mamta Gupta v. State of M.P. and another, 2022 SCC OnLine MP 4452.

11. If things are seen in natural way, the deceased is said to be habitual in locking herself inside the room, therefore, it was quite normal for the family members to break the door in case she was not opening it on the alleged date of incident. Calling police for opening door as well as presence of police personnel when 112 was dialed, creates suspicion and in such case when death of the deceased has taken place within seven years of marriage, offence under relevant section is made out. From the marks of several injuries on the body, death at the in-laws place, presumption is against the alleged accused persons, which cannot be seen here at this stage when the charges have already been framed.

12. In view of the above, this Court does not find any error in the order impugned. The application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. stands dismissed. Order Date :- 24.2.2025 DS DIGAMBER SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad