- (1.) THIS is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing a complaint under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code dated 9-6-1988 and the Summoning order dated 10-9-1988 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur.
(2.) BRIEF material facts are that Asha Rani deceased was married to Pardeep Kumar, petitioner No. 1. on 5-7-1987. Petitioner No. 2 is mother of petitioner No. 1. Asha Rani died an unnatural death on 4-5-1988. A case under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code being FIR No. 187 dated 4-5-1988 was registered against four persons including the present petitioners. It was subsequently cancelled. Thereafter, the aforesaid complaint was filed by Dharampal, brother of the deceased, which is still pending. After recording preliminary evidence, the petitioners ware summoned. The sister and maternal uncle of petitioner No. 1 were not summoned. The petitioners seek quashing of the said complaint and the summoning order.
(3.) THE primary contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that petitioner No. 1, husband of the deceased, was the sole heir of the deceased Asha Rani because admittedly Asha Rani did not leave behind any child. For this conclusion, reliance is placed on the provisions of Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act as interpreted in Ajit Singh and Ors. v. The State of Punjab, 1983 C C. Cases 116 (HC ). The view taken therein was that the husband being hair of the married woman he could not possibly be charged with or found guilty of an offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code with regard to items of dowry after the death of such a woman. It was further observed that the non-obstante clause in Sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act was not of any avail in so far as items of dowry are concerned because it could not be said that items of dowry were "inherited" by the woman from her father. The aforesaid authority was followed in 1988 (2) Recent C. R. 349,.;