Suresh Singh and Others vs Gajendra Singh and Others

B.D. Rathi, J.—Heard on the question of admission.

This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred invoking inherent powers of this Court for the following relief:

"By allowing this petition, order of cognizance dated 24.09.2012, Annexure A-5, passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambah, District Morena (M.P.) in Private Complaint Case No. 1004/2012 and the impugned order dated 06.03.2013, Annexure A-1, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambah, District Morena (M.P.) in Criminal Revision No. 258/2012 be set aside."

The facts of the case, in short, are that one complaint was made by complainant Gajendra Singh S/o Bahadur Singh against the petitioners and other co-accused persons to the effect that marriage of his daughter, namely, Neelam was solemnized on 18.06.2005. Within a period of seven years on 25.07.2010 she died unnaturally. After getting information, when he reached the matrimonial house of his daughter, he came to know that murder of Neelam was committed. After filing such complaint, matter was enquired into by the police and as per the report of SDO(P), Ambah, District Morena (M.P.) dated 16.06.2011, false complaint was made. Thereafter, on 18.07.2011, one private complaint was preferred by Gajendra Singh against the petitioners and other co-accused persons under Sections 498A, 304B, 302, 201, 147 of IPC. Vide order dated 24.09.2012 cognizance was taken by the Magistrate. Complaint was registered for the offence punishable under Sections 498A and 304B of IPC. The order of taking cognizance was challenged by all the accused persons/respondents, in Criminal Revision No. 258/12. Said revision was dismissed vide order dated 06.03.2013 passed by the ASJ, Ambah District Morena (M.P.) in confirmation with the order of cognizance passed by the Magistrate. Being dissatisfied with the order passed by the revisional court, petitioners Suresh Singh and Smt. Rajabeti only have preferred the present petition.

The main contention of the petitioners is that the petitioners are not the relatives of the husband of deceased Smt. Neelam as neither they have any kind of blood relationship nor are they in distinct relationship with the husband of deceased Smt. Neelam. Therefore, the offence under Sections 498A and 304B of IPC could not have been registered against them. In support of the petition, it is submitted by Shri Kushwah, learned counsel, that in complaint dated 23.12.2010 made by complainant Gajendra Singh to the I.G., Central Reserve Police Force (C.R.P.F), CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi, it was mentioned that Smt. Rajabeti is the keep of Ganesh Singh, father-in-law of the deceased. Similarly, it is also mentioned that Suresh Singh, petitioner No. 1, belongs to Kushwah caste though marriage of deceased Smt. Neelam was solemnized in Tomar family. Both are different castes and in such premises neither Smt. Rajabeti nor Suresh Singh are the relatives of husband of deceased Smt. Neelam and even they have no distinct relationship with the husband of the deceased Smt. Neelam, therefore, as per the provisions contained under Section 304B of IPC no offence is made out against them. Hence, the order of taking cognizance passed by the Magistrate against them as well as the order passed by the revisional court in its confirmation may be set aside. In this regard, reliance has been placed on the judgment rendered by the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Gurmit Singh, AIR 2014 SC 2561 : (2014) AIRSCW 3800 : (2014) 8 JT 195 : (2014) 8 SCALE 259 .

In reply, it is submitted by Shri Choudhary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1, that it is a matter of evidence whether petitioner Smt. Rajabeti and Suresh Singh are the relatives of the husband of deceased Smt. Neelam or not. At this stage, order of cognizance cannot be set aside.

After taking into consideration the facts and circumstances mentioned in the complaint made by complainant Gajendra Singh dated 23.12.2010 and also the facts mentioned in the private complaint it is clear that the petitioners are not the relatives of the husband of the deceased. There is no blood relationship between them. To constitute the offence under Section 304B of IPC i.e. Dowry Death, it is necessary to prove that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment "by her husband or any relative of her husband.......". As per the definition of relative, there should be a blood relationship between the husband of the deceased and the accused. In order to constitute offence under Section 498A of IPC, same ingredients in regard to the relationship will have to be proved. In this case, it is not so.

Looking the entire facts and circumstances of the case, petition stands allowed. Orders passed by the learned courts below are set aside. Petitioners are discharged from the offence under Sections 498A and 304B of IPC.