JASBIR SINGH, J. - (1.) PETITIONERS have moved this application under Section 487 Cr.P.C. with a prayer that FIR No. 214 dated 26.6.1992 registered against them under Sections 406, 408 IPC at PS Ganaur and subsequent proceedings taken thereafter be quashed.
(2.) IT has been stated in this application that marriage of petitioner No. 1 was solemnised with Smt. Sushila deceased on 25.6.1989. Petitioner No. 2 is the father-in-law and petitioner No. 3 is the mother-in-law of the deceased. It is further mentioned that Smt. Sushila died in an accidental fire on 3.10.1990. On 4.10.1990, her dying declaration was recorded by a Judicial Magistrate, wherein she had exonerated the petitioners and had specifically stated that she had got fire due to some accident. However, despite dying declaration to that effect, petitioners were booked under Sections 304-B, 498-A IPC and FIR No. 285 dated 12.10.1990 was registered against them. When they were facing trial in that FIR, father of the deceased, Shri Chand Ram out of sheer frustration and with a view to take revenge from petitioners, got registered present FIR, against them, after a period of two years of death of his daughter. By filing the present petition, it has been prayed that FIR above-mentioned be quashed. Shri Nalwa appearing on behalf of the petitioners has vehemently contended that no case is made out against the petitioner. He has stated that even though, father of the deceased was not entitled to get the articles, which are subject matter of FIR, the petitioners informed him that they are ready to return back those articles. In this regard, he made reference to his reply to the legal notice sent by the complainant, wherein it is so mentioned. He further relied upon a judgment of this Court titled as Mangat Ram v. The State of Haryana and anr., 1988(2) RCR(Crl.) 349 to contend that after the death of a married daughter, her father is not entitled to claim any property and initiate criminal proceedings under Section 406 IPC etc. Shri Nalwa has prayed that application be allowed and the FIR under challenge be quashed.
(3.) THIS prayer has vehemently been opposed by the counsel appearing for the State, who has stated that FIR was recorded after thorough investigation. He, by referring to the contents of FIR, argued that case for trial, for commission of offences under Sections 406 and 408 IPC, is made out against the petitioners.;