- (1.) THROUGH the present writ petition the four petitioners desired that an FIR dated 28-6-1998 in case Crime No. 363 of 1998 under 498-A, 304-B and 201ipc read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, P. S. Soraon, Dis trict Allahabad be quashed. The FIR spoke of demand of dowry from the parents of a married girl, Bindu her hus band and in-laws as also of tortures on her by them under demand of dowry. It also spoke of unnatural death of Bindu in the place of her husband, preceded by dowry harassment and stretchy disposal of the dead body. The prosecution story further indicated that the dead body of Bindu was recovered and was identified by her father, Behari Lal Chauhan, who had lodged the FIR of the four petitioners. Shiv Kumar is the husband of Bindu while the other three are relatives of Shiv Kumar.
(2.) A definite defence was taken by Shiv Kumar and others that Bindu was alive and was happily living with Shiv Kumar and his relations in her matrimonial home. Under the orders of this Court Bindu was produced before this Court. Father, mother and sister of Bindu namely, Behari Lal, Israji Devi and Saroja respectively were called before this Court on a day when Bindu was also present and on question by the Court, they had categorically stated that the girl clal ming herself to be Bindu was not the daughter of Behari Lal and Israjior the sister of Saroja. There was however an admission that the petitioner Shiv Kumar who had produced Bindu and whom Bindu had clal med to be her husband was really the same Shiv Kumar with whom the daughter of Behari Lal and Israji was married. There was a further admission that a child born to their daughter Bindu, was the child brought to the Court by Shiv Kumar alongwith the girl identify by him as Bindu. In view of the bald contradictory clal m of both the sides, one asserting the girl to be Bindu a daughter of Behari Lal while Behari Lal and others denying such identity, the Court directed the Senior Superintendent of Police, Al lahabad to get DNA test done for Behari Lal, for the girl clal ming to be Bindu in Court as also for the admitted daughter of Shiv Kumar born to Bindu for determining the parentage of this girl, Bindu, and to satisfy whether she was the daughter of Behari Lal as also whether the admitted daughter of Shiv Kumar born to Bindu was a daughter of this girl, now clal ming as Bindu. The parties agreed to such test and the report was received fixing the parentage of the "disputed Bindu" with Behari Lal and motherhood of this Bindu with the admitted baby of Shiv Kumar and the daughter of Behari Lal and Israji. After the receipt of such report all the parties were directed to appear before this Court, Bindu, Shiv Kumar, Behari Lal and Israji appeared before this Court but Saroja did not and it was stated on affidavit that she had been married and was living in her matrimonial home. Although Saroja declined to identify her sister, Bindu in Court, we may take a lenient view in respect of her looking to her newly married status and we do not propose to proceed further so far Saroja is concerned. So far the clal m in the present writ petition is concerned we are satisfied that the FIR, which spoke of unnatural death of Bindu preceded by tortures on her under demand of dowry was false. Bindu herself appeared in Court and made no allegation against the husband or the in-laws. The FIR in question is accordingly quashed. It is however relevant to mention here that a dead-body of a woman was undisputedly recovered which was identified by Behari Lal as that of Bindu. Bindu being alive, the FIR in the case under Section 304-B and 498-A IPC together with the allied sec tions is hereby quashed. But it would be the duty of the concerned investigating officer to find out the identity of the girl whose dead body was recovered and to proceed with the investigating after initiating a case under Section 302 IPC against unknown accused. So far the FIR against the present petitioner is concerned, we have quashed it. They must not be proceeded against any further in respect of that FIR.
(3.) AS regards the conduct of Behari Lal and Israji, the same has two stages. At the first stage, Behari Lal lodged a report at the police station which has been proved to be not true. At the second stage when Bindu appeared before us not only Behari Lal but also his wife Israji had the audacity to deny the identity of their own daughter Bindu. They had to concede the identity of Bindu only after the report from the concerned laboratory had come after the test, Behari Lal and Israji both had accepted in their state ment in Court recorded on 8-10-1999 that they had intentionally denied the identity of Bindu. This was in addition to any other offence, a blatant contempt of Court. Learned counsel appearing for Be hari Lal and Israji submitted that there were compelling reasons for Behari Lal to doubt that their daughter Bindu had been killed as Bindu was not available in the house of Shiv Kumar. The dead body ac cording to Behari Lal had a tattoo mark 'shiv Bindu'. It has been brought to our notice that the police diary indicated that the dead body had only a tattoo mark 'sb'. Whatever be reasons for Behari Lal to lodge the FIR and to identify the dead body as that of Bindu, there was no justification, legal or real for them for denying the iden tity of Bindu in Court, while Behari Lal took a plea that he had seen the dead body of his daughter and was thus unable to accept the girl in the Court as their daughter Bindu, Israji took up a plea that she did not inten tionally identify Bindu as Bindu had played a fraud on her by stealthily leaving her husband's place. If they were the parents aggrieved by the missing death of their daughter, the only normal reaction for them on seeing Bindu alive in Court would be one of extreme happiness. Instead they went on denying her identity. In our view they deserve punishment for contempt of Court in a summary manner as admittedly they had stated falsehood before the Court and tried to mislead the Court and had actually compelled the State to incur expenses towards conduct of DNA test at laboratory in Hyderabad. We punish both Behari Lal Chauhan and his wife Israji Devi for con tempt of Court and ask them to pay a fine Rs. 5000 (five thousand rupees) each within 15 days from today, failing which the sum shall be recovered from them through process of Court. We have deliberately refrained from giving any imprisonment to this couple as (sic) this matter to the proper authority for taking legal steps against Behari Lal for lodging report in the police station which has been proved to be not true. It will be open for the police or other authority to take such action as may be deemed fit under the law against Behari Lal for lodg ing the above report. Petition allowed. .;