T.P.S.MANN, J. - (1.) THE petitioners are seeking quashing of FIR No. 29 dated 20.5.2005 registered at Police Station Hajipur under Section 306 IPC.
(2.) THE aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a statement made by Satish Kumar, son of deceased Lekh Raj. It was alleged by Satish Kumar that he was resident of village Hajipur and running a tea shop in the village. There was a shop in the front portion of his house which had been given on rent by his grand-father Mangat Ram in the year 1976 to Dalip Singh petitioner on monthly rent of Rs. 20/-. Dalip Singh had been paying the rent regularly to Lekh Raj, as increased from time to time and in the year 2005, the monthly rent was Rs. 300/-. On 30.4.2005 at 8.00 p.m. Dalip Singh paid the rent of the shop to deceased Lekh Raj but told him that he should not come to take the rent in future because he had purchased half share in the shop and the house from Hem Raj petitioner, who was none-else but real brother of deceased Lekh Raj. However, Satish Kumar claimed that his uncle Hem Raj had no concern with the house and the shop, as for the last about 40 years deceased Lekh Raj was residing with his family in the same. From that day onwards, when Lekh Raj came to know about the execution of the sale deed, he started feeling depressed and all the time was worried and brooding. Day by day, his health weakened and ultimately on 29.5.2005, Lekh Raj died on account of shock. It was alleged in the FIR that Dalip Singh and Hem Raj petitioners, were responsible for the death of Lekh Raj, as Hem Raj sold half share of the house and the shop to Dalip Singh. Accordingly, FIR under Section 306 IPC was registered. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that a bare perusal of the FIR showed that even if all the allegations levelled therein were taken to be correct, the same did not disclose the commission of any offence, much less under Section 306 IPC. Further that the house and the shop were rented by Mangat Ram, who died in the year 1978. He was survived by two sons, namely, Lekh Raj deceased and Hem Raj petitioner. On 3.2.2004, Hem Raj executed a sale deed in respect of his half share in the house and shop in favour of Dalip Singh petitioner. Thereafter, a civil suit was filed by Dalip Singh on 14.5.2005 for possession by way of partition of house and shop against Lekh Raj deceased and Hem Raj, besides seeking permanent injunction with consequential relief of restraining Lekh Raj deceased from changing the nature of the property in dispute. Copy of the plaint has been placed on the record as Annexure P-2. Vide order dated 16.5.2005 Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dasuya directed the parties to maintain status quo regarding the existing possession of the property in dispute till 31.5.2005. Later on, an application was filed by Dalip Singh for appointing a Local Commissioner to visit the spot, as he alleged that Lekh Raj was proceeding with the construction of the house in dispute. The Local Commissioner visited the spot on 25.5.2005 after service of notice on both the parties, including Lekh Raj deceased. Lekh Raj also moved an application to the police that his brother Hem Raj had wrongly sold half share of the house and shop to Dalip Singh by registered sale deed despite the fact that his brother Hem Raj had no concern with the same and that Hem Raj had cheated him by executing a false sale deed.
(3.) REFERRING to the post-mortem report in respect of deceased Lekh Raj, counsel for the petitioners pointed out that against the column "information by police", it was recorded that the deceased "alleged to have died of heart attack.";