M.C.JAIN, J. - (1.) The petitioners, six in number, have preferred this writ petition for issuance of writ of certiorari, quashing the F.I.R. dated 24th Nov. 2004 lodged against them as case crime No. 352 of 2004, under Sections 498A/304B, I.P.C. and Sec. 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, at Police Station Kotwali Karvi, District Chitrakoot. An application has also been put in to stay their arrest in pursuance of the said F.I.R. during the pendency of the writ petition.
(2.) The F.I.R. is Annexure 1 to the writ petition lodged by respondent No. 4, Rajnish Kumar Agarwal brother of the deceased lady Jyoti alias Shalu who was married with petitioner No. 1 Subodh Agarwal on 14th Dec. 1998. The allegations in the F.I.R. are that a decent marriage had been performed. Cash and dowry had been given as per the capacity of the father of the deceased. When 15 days after the marriage, the deceased's father and brother (informant) went to meet her in her Sasural, she told them that her in-laws were asking her to bring a Maruti Esteem Car and Rs, 5 Lacs from her father as part of the dowry. They earnestly and courteously expressed their ability to the petitioners to meet their demands but they (petitioners) insisted that they had to fulfil the demands. The informant's father then requested for a year's time to meet the said demands. The petitioners then started harassing, torturing and assaulting the deceased, even not giving food to her. The deceased wrote a letter to her parents in Nov. 1999 about the atrocities being heaped upon in her Sasural. She also expressed her apprehension that in case the demands of her in-laws were not satisfied, she could be done to death by them. Receiving this letter, the informant's father went to the deceased's Sasural and gave some money to her in-laws, pleading that a year's time had not yet passed which he had earlier solicited for fulfilling their demands and still his daughter was being subjected to cruelties. He also showed the letter that he had received from her daughter. Petitioner No. 2 tore off that letter and asked him (father of the deceased) to meet the demands at the earliest, threatening that he would not be able to see his daughter alive otherwise. Shocked, the informant's father could not survive for long and died. The informant could not arrange finances to meet the demands of the in-laws of his sister. On 29th March, 2004, he received an information on telephone that the petitioners had murdered his sister and had then hung her dead body with a ceiling fan. He, his uncle, younger brother, mother, sister, aunt and Bahnoi (sister's husband) reached the Sasural of the deceased and found that Panchayatnama and post mortem had already been conducted and her in-laws were about to cremate her. When he and others accompanying him inquired from the petitioners as to how she died, they informed that she had committed suicide. He and others accompanying him, went to the Police Station. The police made them to sit there but did not take down their report, saying that Chhedi Lal - petitioner No. 2 (father-in-law of informant's sister) was such an influential person that their report would not be taken down. On their repeated requests, the report was taken by the police and they were sent back. When the informant again reached the Police Station on 15th April, 2004 to inquire about the matter, he came to know that his report had not been lodged. Then the informant addressed this report to the Suprintendent of Police Chitrakoot and it appears that ultimately under the orders of the S.P. Chitrakoot dated 23rd Nov. 2004 the instant F.I.R. came to be registered on 24th Nov. 2004.
(3.) As per the averments made by the petitioners in the writ petition, the deceased actually committed suicide and died as such. When the petitioners saw her hanging from ceiling fan, a report was immediately given by petitioner No. 2 at the Police Station which was entered in the G.D. at No. 24 at 9.30 a.m. on 29th March, 2004. Panchayatnama and post-mortem over the dead body of the deceased were conducted. On 5th June 2004, respondent No. 4 had moved an application under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chitrakoot whereupon the Chief Judicial Magistral directed that a report be called for from the concerned Police Station. On 15th June 2004, the Chief Judicial Magistrate rejected the application filed by respondent No. 4 under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. Respondent No. 4 (informant) then preferred criminal revision No. 52 of 2004 thereagainst which was decided by the Sessions Judge Chitrakoot on 3rd August; 2004. The revisional Court quashed the order dated 15th June 2004 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chitrakoot and directed that the application filed by respondent No. 4 be decided in terms of Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. as per Chapter XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure and remanded the matter for appropriate orders. Then on 9th August, 2004, the Chief Judicial Magistrate ordered that the said application be registered as complaint case and directed the complainant to appear for his statement under Section 200, Cr. P.C. In the meantime, respondent No. 4 has filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 8587 of 2004 under Section 482, Cr. P.C. before this Court to quash the order dated 9th August, 2004 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chitrakoot. In the meantime, he also gave an application to the S.P., Chitrakoot, requesting him to get the F.I.R. registered. On the basis of the order passed by the S.P. Chitrakoot on the said application, the instant F.I.R. has been registered. The petitioners aver that they have falsely been implicated.;