IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No. 116 of 2011. Date of decision: 26.9.2011. Yashpal Sharma &ors. …..Petitioners. Vs. State of H.P. …. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : Ms. Salochna Kaundal, Advocate. For the Respondent : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Add. Advocate General with Mr. J.S.Rana, Asstt. Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, Judge (oral). The petitioners have filed this petition, under Art. 227 of Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing FIR No. 19 dated 11.2.2011 and case No. 67/2/11 pending in the court of learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala. 2. The petitioner No. 1 is the husband, petitioner No. 2 father-in-law, petitioner No.3 sister-in-law, petitioner No.4 mother–in- law of deceased Dimple Sharma. The petitioner NO. 5 is the husband of petitioner No. 3. The FIR No. 19 dated 11.2.2011 has been registered, under Sections 498-A, 306, 34 IPC at Police Station, Dehra at the instance of Vijay Kumar father of deceased Dimple Sharma. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case. The petitioners Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… neither demanded dowry from the deceased Dimple nor they ill- treated her. It is unfortunate that deceased has committed suicide, but petitioners are not responsible for unfortunate death of the deceased. The police has already filed report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. in the court against the petitioners. The learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class (1) Dehra on 24.6.2011 has committed the case to the learned Sessions Judge and now the case is fixed on 18.10.2011 for consideration of charge before the learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala. 3. I have gone through the record. The case has been registered at the instance of Vijay Kumar father of the deceased. In the FIR, it has been stated that Dimple Sharma had consumed some poisonous substance on 10.2.2011 after the “mundan” ceremony of son Krish. In the FIR, it has been stated that Dimple Sharma has taken this extreme step due to the cruelty of in-laws of the deceased. The learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to affidavit of Narayan Dass Annexure P-2, but this affidavit cannot be considered at this stage inasmuch as it is not a part of report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. In the statement, under Section 161 Cr.P.C., Nirmala Devi mother of deceased has stated that Dimple Sharma had consumed poisonous substance in view of harassment of her husband Yashpal, mother-in-law Tripta Sharma, father-in-law Kishori Lal Sharma, sister- in-law Sonia Sharma and brother-in-law Lucky. In Forensic Science Laboratory report, it has been stated that phosphine gas was detected in the contents of parcels/ exhibits. The learned Sessions Judge has already fixed the case for consideration of charge. On the …3… basis of material on record, it cannot be said that no case under Sections 498-A, 306, 34 IPC has been made out against the petitioners. However, it is for the petitioners to make submissions before the learned Sessions Judge that on the basis of material on record, no case for framing of charge is made out against the petitioners and they shall be at liberty to make submission for their discharge. In so far as the present petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is concerned, the petitioners have failed to make out any case for interference. 4. Resultantly, the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the learned Sessions Judge on the date already fixed. The record of the court below be sent back immediately so as to reach well before the date fixed. The pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. September 26, 2011. ( Kuldip Singh ), (Hem) Judge.