Laxmi Narain Mittal, J. - (1.) GURMIT Singh, his wife Gurmit Kaur and their two daughters namely Kamlesh Kaur and Baljit Kaur along with one Parminder Singh alias Parvinder Singh have filed the instant petition under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing criminal complaint (Annexure P -1) filed against them by Baldev Singh -Respondent No. 2, for offences under Sections 306 and 120B IPC pending in the court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Anandpur Sahib.
(2.) AT the motion stage itself, the instant petition qua Petitioners No. 4 and 5 i.e. Baljit Kaur and Parminder Singh was dismissed and notice of motion was issued qua Petitioners No. 1 to 3 only. According to the allegations in the impugned complaint, Jaswinder Singh, son of Baldev Singh complainant -Respondent No. 2 got married with Petitioner No. 4 on 16.04.2000. However, after one or two months of the marriage, Baljit Kaur went to her matrimonial home. Kamlesh Kaur Petitioner No. 3, who is elder sister of Baljit Kaur, is a widow and is residing with her parents i.e. Petitioners No. 1 and 2. Jaswinder Singh (since deceased) went to his in -laws' house to bring back his wife Baljit Kaur but was surprised to see Baljit Kaur and Parminder Singh in objectionable condition in the house. On inquiry, Jaswinder Singh learnt that Petitioner No. 4 was having illicit relationship with Petitioner No. 5 since before the marriage. Jaswinder Singh protested about the same but he was snubbed by Petitioners No. 1 to 3. However, Petitioners No. 1 and 2 assured Jaswinder Singh that Petitioner No. 5 would not come to their house in future. On this assurance, Petitioner No. 4 was taken to her matrimonial home. However, Petitioner No. 4 could not win the confidence of Jaswinder Singh. She even wanted transfer of the house in her own name. In September 2000, she went to her parental home without consent of the deceased. The deceased again visited the house of his in -laws and learnt about the intimacy of Petitioner No. 4 with Petitioner No. 5. However, Petitioner No. 4 was again brought to matrimonial home. A male child was born out of the wedlock on 13.01.2001. Petitioner No. 4 took the newly born child to her parental home. The deceased went to his in -laws' house and again found Petitioner No. 5 there. However, the Petitioners warned the deceased saying that Petitioner No. 5 will not leave their house and that Petitioner No. 4 will not go to her matrimonial home. The Petitioners misbehaved with the deceased later on also. The deceased, along with his father and a mediator went to the house of his in - laws on 01.04.2001 but the Petitioners refused to send Petitioner No. 4 to her matrimonial home. A meeting was also convened on 27.05.2001 wherein it was pointed out that presence of Petitioner No. 5 in the house of the Petitioners is the root cause the trouble. However, the Petitioners refused to send Petitioner No. 4 to the matrimonial home and rather quarrelled with the deceased and declared that Petitioner No. 4 cannot live without Petitioner No. 5 and also declared that Petitioner No. 4 can leave the deceased but not Petitioner No. 5. The deceased became depressed on account of this behaviour of the Petitioners. The deceased filed divorce petition on 12.06.2001. He remained under tension on account of illicit relationship of Petitioner No. 4 with Petitioner No. 5. Neighbours of the deceased also told that the Petitioners had threatened the deceased not to come to their house and forget Petitioner No. 4 forever. The deceased was so much disturbed mentally at the hands of the Petitioners that he committed suicide on 18.06.2001 by jumping in Bhakra Nangal Canal. The complainant, who was upset over death of his son, was made to sign report in Daily Diary, without going through its contents, but it was mentioned in the said report (Annexure P -2) that the deceased had accidentally slipped into the canal while taking bath. The deceased had also told his friends that there was no pleasure left in his life on account of illicit relationship of Petitioner No. 4 with Petitioner No. 5. It is also alleged that Petitioners No. 1 and 2 defrauded and be fooled the deceased into marrying with Petitioner No. 4 who already had illicit relationship with Petitioner No. 5. It is thus concluded in the complaint that the deceased committed suicide on account of the illicit relationship between Petitioners No. 4 and 5 and consequent insult and humiliation on account thereof and also on account of harsh behaviour of Petitioners No. 1 to 3.
(3.) AS regards Petitioner No. 3, there is hardly any allegation against her in the impugned complaint except that on the first occasion, when the deceased found Petitioners No. 4 and 5 in objectionable position, the deceased protested to Petitioners No. 1 to 3, who however snubbed him. This was, however, about one year before the suicide. On the basis of this allegation, it cannot be said that Petitioner No. 3 abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased. Besides it, there are some very vague and general allegations against Petitioner No. 3. However, she had nothing to do with the matter because the root cause of controversy was the alleged illicit relationship of Petitioner No. 4 with Petitioner No. 5.;