Harender Singh vs State of Uttaranchal and another

Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.—By means of this petition, a prayer has been made to quash the chargesheet, giving rise to the criminal case no. 1283 of 2005, "State Vs. Harender Singh", pertaining to crime no. 39 of 2005 under Sections 304-B/506 IPC of P.S. Raiwala, District Dehradun. It is pertinent to mention that private respondent no. 2 Chanda Devi has sufficiently been served and the name of her counsel is appearing on the list but none turns up on her behalf even in the revised call. So, this Court has rendered hearing to learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned brief holder for the State.

It transpires that petitioner Harender Singh wedded with Jyoti on 22.6.2004. Within less than five months of marriage, Jyoti died. So, the FIR was lodged by Chanda Devi (mother of Jyoti) with the following averments.

After the marriage, she came to know that petitioner is already married with one Smt. Punam, and just after two months of the said marriage, petitioner left her daughter Jyoti at her native place at Raiwala, Dehradun with a demand of Rs. 50,000/- as dowry. Smt. Jyoti sent a complaint on 14.9.2004 to the concerned authorities but when the Police came into action, certain respected persons compounded the terms between Jyoti and petitioner. So, Jyoti again began to reside with her husband Harender Singh.

On 17.11.2004, petitioner along with Jyoti came to the house of Chanda Devi. Petitioner brought curry and rice from some hotel and offered the same for eating to Smt. Jyoti. No sooner did she eat the same, she became ill. Petitioner fetched the doctor and gave the medicine to Smt. Jyoti. At that time, no family member of Chanda Devi was allowed to enter the room where Jyoti was lying.

Next day, petitioner along with his Jeep driver left the house and it was noticed that Jyoti has died. Petitioner was again informed on phone. Firstly, he refused to return again but when insisted to see his wife Jyoti, then he came and took the dead body of Jyoti with him in his jeep. Without post-mortem, he managed the last rituals of Smt. Jyoti and ignored the desire of Chanda Devi and other neighbouring persons to get the post-mortem conducted on the dead body in the government hospital. He also threatened for dire consequences if any adverse action is taken against him. So, Smt. Chanda Devi lodged the FIR on 29.3.2005. The matter was investigated which resulted into the submission of the chargesheet on 16.5.2005 for the offence of Sections 304-B/506 IPC. Learned Magistrate has taken the cognizance on 20.7.2005 on the said chargesheet.

It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that there was a considerable delay in lodging of the FIR by Chanda Devi. This contention is wholly untenable because in such heinous cases, there is no time limit prescribed for lodging of the FIR. All the more, an FIR is not the embodiment of the entire facts and the same can be well explained by Chanda Devi while being examined in the court.

The contention that petitioner was already married with a woman, named Smt. Punam, in no way favours the petitioner. There appears to be no reason for this Court to quash the chargesheet or the cognizance order in the present case and the Court feels that the trial should be proceeded without any delay against the accused in such a serious matter. So, this petition is bereft of any merit and liable to be dismissed. Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Stay order granted earlier by the Court has already been vacated. Let the information be sent to the court below to proceed ahead with the trial as early as possible, inasmuch as, the same has already been delayed for a long time on account of pendency of instant petition. It is however, provided that in case the petitioner surrenders before the court concerned, his bail application will be disposed of without any unreasonable delay.