- (1.) THIS petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C.') is preferred for quashment of First Information Report, being IC. R. No.I -1 of 2004, registered with Ranip Police Station, Ahmedabad, on 1st January 2014, alleging offences punishable under sections 365, 328, 302 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code qua the petitioner.
(2.) BRIEF facts leading to the petition, as are relevant for the purpose of dealing with the controversy involved herein, are discussed as under: 2.1 The informant, Sangitaben is the wife of deceased Kaushalbhai Ramanbhai Panchal. Wife of the petitioner, Bhavinkumar and the deceased Kaushal and his brother Umesh Panchal were partners in the firm 'Advance Deny Feb' since 2005. 2.2 The deceased accompanied the petitioner on 16th March 2013 at about 12.00 noon in an Indica car driven by Keshubhai for the purpose of recovery of business dues to Udaipur. According to the informant, before that, the deceased was reluctant to go there, making a grievance that the business accounts were not being settled since long, and that the efforts in past for such recovery were proved futile. The petitioner, however, persisted, stating that they should go for the recovery, as their debtors were waiting to pay, and that they may not get such chance of recovery in future. According to the informant, thus with much reluctance, the deceased went to Udaipur with the petitioner. After reaching Udaipur, the informant and her father -in -law interacted telephonically with the deceased respectively at about 6.30 p.m. and 8.30 p.m. They were informed that the deceased and the petitioner had lodged in hotel 'Labgarh Palace', and were scheduled for Bhilwara on the next morning. 2.3 It is further alleged in the First Information Report that on the next day at about 10.00 a.m., her brother -in -law Umesh Panchal was telephonically informed by his partner Pravin Shantibhai about the death of her husband Kaushal as a result of heart attack. It is alleged in the First Information Report that her brother -in -law sensing something fishy learnt on enquiry from the petitioner that the deceased consumed excessive beer on the preceding night, and had frequently vomited. He also informed the petitioner having registered an accidental death report being No. 14 of 2013 under section 174 of Cr.P.C. in Sukher Police Station of Udaipur city. It is alleged that suspecting a foul play, her brother -in -law Umesh Panchal pursued the matter further, and because of non -cooperation of Sukher Police Station, he had a resort to an application under Right to Information Act for collection of necessary information, whereupon various documents were supplied to him, including an F.S.L. Report, wherein a poisonous substance found in the viscera of the deceased was stated as deceased's cause of death. The informant further suspects in the First Information Report the unwarranted presence of one Jital Kansara, who, according to her, had not accompanied the deceased and Bhavinkumar, when they left for Udaipur on 16th March 2013 in the car, as aforesaid. According to the informant, dispute as regards partnership accounts was the motive for murder of her husband. 2.4 In so far as proceedings under section 174 of Cr.P.C. are concerned, it is a common ground that the investigation for a limited purpose of ascertaining the cause of death of the deceased is being carried out by Sukher police. It is also a common ground that the brother -in -law of the informant Umesh Panchal pursued the said matter through senior police officials raising various points for investigation as enumerated in the letter dated 25th March 2013 addressed by the informant's brother -in -law to Sukher police produced at Annexure 'B' to the petition.
(3.) IT appears that initially the informant's attempt to get her First Information Report registered in Ranip Police Station failed for want of jurisdiction to investigate the matter. However, on further persuasion with the Home Ministry of the State, and various representations, it came to be registered in Ranip Police Station, Ahmedabad, on 1st January 2014. The said First Information Report is being questioned in the present petition, mainly for want of jurisdiction with Ranip Police Station, Ahmedabad to investigate it. Learned senior advocate fairly conceded that petitioner's case was not based upon section 174 of the Cr.P.C. He also submitted that the scope of section 174 of Cr.P.C. as urged by the respondents, particularly, respondent No.2 herein, is also not disputed. Thus, no extensive discussion is called for in relation to section 174 of Cr.P.C.;