RANJIT SINGH, J. - (1.) USHA Mehta wife of Sudarshan Mehta has filed this revision petition challenging the order passed by Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, allowing the application of the prosecution to summon her as an additional accused to face prosecution for an offence under Section 304B IPC alongwith her son, Sunil Mehta.
(2.) SUNIL Mehta married Renu daughter of Subhash Chander on 30.4.2005. On 15.7.2006, Renu committed suicide by hanging. Her father Subhash Chander lodged this FIR alleging that he had given dowry as per his means but still Sunil Mehta and his mother Usha Mehta had been taunting and harassing her daughter for bringing insufficient dowry. Allegation of demand of car is also made. It is mentioned that 10 days prior to the incident, Late Renu had come to the complainant and had told that accused were pressuring her to bring car from her parents. At that time, he had allegedly given Rs.10,000/- and sent her back to her in-laws. Late Renu had subsequently contacted her brother on telephone, complaining of tension and requested him to arrange money. The case was investigated by police and challan under Section 306 IPC was presented against Sunil Mehta, husband of deceased Renu. Usha Mehta was found innocent and shown in Column No. 2 of the report. Ultimately, the charge under Section 306 IPC was also framed against Sunil Mehta. The complainant, however, did not feel satisfied with this and filed a revision petition before this Court for framing a charge under Section 304B IPC instead of Section 306 IPC. This revision petition was decided on 7.5.2007 with liberty to the prosecution to move an application for amendment of charge. Statement of Subhash Chander was recorded on 23.7.2007 wherein he reiterated all the allegations made in the FIR. Prosecution then filed an application for amendment of the charge, which was allowed, charging Sunil Mehta under Section 304B IPC. Subsequently, an application was moved for summoning petitioner, Usha Mehta, for an offence under Section 304B IPC, which has now been allowed.
(3.) WHILE assailing the impugned order, counsel for the petitioner has made manifold submissions. The counsel would first contend that earlier order framing the charge under Section 306 IPC passed by the Sessions Court has not been considered by the Court while summoning the petitioner. He would then refer to the suicide note left by the deceased in her own handwriting, which indicate that Renu had committed suicide due to involvement of Sunil Mehta with some girl. In this suicide note, deceased Renu had praised her mother in law i.e. the petitioner and despite this fact and the finding of the investigating agency, exonerating the petitioner, she has now been summoned under Section 304-B/34 IPC, which offence is not made out at all. The counsel has also referred to the FSL report opining that the writing on the suicide note matches with the standard writing of the deceased Renu to say that this suicide note was required to be believed. In this context, the counsel has also referred to earlier order passed by Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, while framing a charge under Section 306 IPC.;