In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Misc. No.M-30935 of 2009 ..... Date of decision:26.7.2010 Sonia .....Petitioner v. State of Punjab and another .....Respondents .... Present: Mr. S.P. Soi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. V.P.S. Sidhu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State. ..... S.S. Saron, J. Affidavit of Shri Harpreet Singh Banipal, PPS, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Model Town, Jalandhar has been filed. The same is taken on record. The present petition has been filed by Sonia wife of petitioner No.2 Naresh Kumar under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (`Cr.P.C.' - for short) seeking quashing of FIR No.389 dated 6.10.2009 (Annexure-P.5) registered at Police Station, Division No.6, Jalandhar for the offence under Section 306 Indian Penal Code (`IPC' – for short). According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the offence under Section 306 IPC is not made out against Sonia (petitioner) as the death of her father-in-law Bhag Chand had occurred due to a heart attack. Therefore, it is submitted that no charge is made out against the petitioner. Cr. Misc. No.M-30935 of 2009 [2] In terms of the affidavit filed on behalf of Naresh Kumar (respondent No.2), it is stated that during investigation of the case a supplementary statement of the complainant Naresh Kumar (respondent No.2) and statements of Mohinder Kaur wife of Bhag Chand Kaler (deceased), Manmohandeep son of Bhag Chand and Jagmohan Lal son of Harnam Dass were recorded on 7.10.2009 and they supported the version as given in the FIR. Besides, statement of Dr. Navjot Singh working at Amarjit Hospital, Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar, Jalandhar was recorded on 17.10.2009. He stated that Bhag Chand (deceased) was suffering from heart attack when he visited him and he advised that the patient be taken to the hospital. However, the patient died in the meanwhile. It is also stated that statement of Balbir Singh, Excise and Taxation Officer son of Sewa Singh was recorded on 11.11.2009 and he had supported the prosecution version. It is submitted that the Deputy Superintendent of Police has examined the case file and he came to the conclusion that offence under Section 304 IPC was attracted and not under Section 306 IPC under which the FIR has been registered. Accordingly, directions have been given to SHO, Police Station, Division No.6, Jalandhar on 5.3.2010. The investigation in the case has been completed and final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has been prepared and is ready for presentation before the Illaqa Magistrate at Jalandhar. The position is that Naresh Kumar (respondent No.2) son of Bhag Chand (deceased) lodged FIR alleging that he was married to Sonia (petitioner) in 1996. They had one son, namely, Manraj in 1988. Sonia (petitioner) has been living separately at her parental house off and on since Cr. Misc. No.M-30935 of 2009 [3] their marriage. She was continuously living separate since 2004 and she had abandoned and left their son Manraj. The complainant filed a divorce petition against his wife (petitioner) but it was dismissed. The petitioner also filed a separate petition in the Court at Jalandhar demanding custody of Manraj. It was alleged by the complainant (respondent No.2) that he also made a complaint that his wife (petitioner) was torturing his parents regularly. It is alleged that on 27.4.2009 at about 7.00 p.m. the wife (petitioner) of the complainant tortured him and his father in the presence of doctor, Sukhwinder Singh IPS (DIG) and Balbir Bhatti, Excise and Taxation Officer, Punjab who had come to meet the father of the complainant. On 29.9.2009, the petitioner came to the home of the complainant at about 9.00 a.m. and started scolding the complainant and his father while the complainant was taking care of his father (deceased). After that she went away and father of the complainant died at 9.20 a.m. It is alleged that no doubt the father of the complainant was a heart patient but his death was accelerated by the petitioner scolding him regularly and by filing a false domestic violence case against him. In his previous application the complainant demanded security for his parents from his wife Sonia (petitioner). Accordingly, it was requested that FIR be registered. The Police though registered a case for the offence under Section 306 IPC, however, the DSP who conducted an inquiry found it to be a case under Section 304 IPC. The final report along with the documents is to be submitted in the Court of Illaqa Magistrate. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances it would be just and expedient that the documents and the report that are submitted are considered by the concerned Court itself at the Cr. Misc. No.M-30935 of 2009 [4] time of consideration of framing charges. This Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not to embark upon an inquiry so as to go into veracity of facts to determine as to what offence is made out. This is the domain of the trial Court after the final report is filed by the Police in terms of Section 173 Cr.P.C. The procedure provided cannot be circumvented or short-circuited in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. Besides, the petitioner has his remedy of raising her contentions before the learned trial Court at the time of consideration of framing charges. It is well known that the Court at the time of consideration of framing charges does not act as a mere mouth-piece or a post-office for the prosecution and it can sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case has been made out. The total effect of the material and documents before the Court are to be considered. In the facts and circumstances, no ground is made out for interference with the impugned FIR in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. Accordingly, the criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed. July 26, 2010. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*