Criminal Misc.-M No. 26727 of 2011 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc.-M No. 26727 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 3.10.2011 Rajwant Kaur @ Rinku .. Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Atul Lakhanpal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Jasmeet Singh Bhinder, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. G. S. Chahal, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. J. S. Thind, Advocate for the complainant. ... Rajesh Bindal J. Prayer in the present petition is for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, who is an accused in FIR No. 234 dated 21.6.2011, registered under Section 306/34 IPC, Police Station, Ratia, District Fatehabad. The FIR has been registered on the complaint of Harjeet Kaur, whose husband committed suicide by consuming some poisonous substance. The petitioner is sister-in-law of the complainant, namely, wife of brother of the deceased husband of the complainant. It is alleged in the FIR that husband of the petitioner and the deceased husband of the complainant are two brothers. Their father owned 18 acres of land, which Criminal Misc.-M No. 26727 of 2011 [2] was divided into three parts. The husband of the petitioner got six acres of land. The husband of the complainant also got six acres and remaining six acres of land was kept by the father-in-law of the complainant. The husband of the complainant was also cultivating the land retained by the father in his share in addition to his own share. It is alleged that the husband of the complainant was being harassed by the petitioner and her husband. On the fateful day, husband of the complainant had a fight with the petitioner and her husband over water of the tubewell, on account of which he consumed poison and died. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that husband of the petitioner has already been arrested and is in custody. It is an admitted case of the complainant that after partition of the family property, the brothers were living separate for the last about 1-1/2 years. The incidents sought to be projected in the FIR to allege instigation to commit suicide are quite trivial or had taken place long back. On the basis of allegations, no case for abetment to commit suicide can be made out. He further submitted that now in the FIR it is sought to be alleged that there was a fight between the petitioner and her husband on one side and the deceased on the other side, but no one was present at the spot. It was merely a presumption of the complainant. The submission is that the complainant got her supplementary statement recorded on 14.7.2011 to allege that earlier the petitioner had filed a complaint with the police alleging torture for dowry and also that her father-in-law was having illicit relations with the complainant on account of which the petitioner was being harassed. Reliance on complaint (Annexure-R2), placed on record by learned counsel for the complainant, is totally mis-placed as the alleged incident took place more than one year prior to the date on which the deceased committed suicide. On the other hand, learned counsels for the State as well as the complainant submitted that on 17.4.2010, the petitioner had made a complaint to the police alleging harassment and that the complainant was having illicit relations with her father-in-law on account of which proceedings under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C. were initiated. Calendra was Criminal Misc.-M No. 26727 of 2011 [3] also prepared, which was ultimately filed on 21.10.2010. Learned counsel for the complainant further submitted that the facts, which were stated by the complainant in her supplementary statement, were all matter of record and was one of the reasons which instigated the deceased to commit suicide. Even if these allegations are not there in the FIR, the same can very well be considered by the court as during investigation, all these facts have been brought to the notice of the Investigating Officer. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. A perusal of the material, referred to by learned counsel for the parties in court, shows that immediate fight which had allegedly taken place between the deceased on one side and the petitioner and her husband on the other side was on 20.6.2011 at the tubewell for water, on account of which the deceased consumed poison and ultimately died. There are allegations that the deceased was being tortured mentally by the petitioner and her husband on account of the fact that he was cultivating 12 acres of land as against six acres owned by the husband of the petitioner. Admittedly, the parties were living separate for the last about 1-1/2 years. Reference to the complaint made by the petitioner to the police alleging illicit relations of the complainant with her father-in-law was also made. The aforesaid complaint was apparently filed in April, 2010. Nothing was produced in court to show that what kind of action was taken on that complaint. However, calendra was prepared under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C. on the basis of a complaint by the father of the petitioner stating therein that he was slapped and given fist blows by the other side. The matter was ultimately dropped by the Sub Divisional Magistrate after six months. The husband of the petitioner has already been arrested. In view of the aforesaid facts, in my opinion, the petitioner is not required to be taken into custody for interrogation. She will appear before the Investigating Officer on 14.10.2011 at 10.00 AM to join investigation. In case of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on furnishing of bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer. She shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when Criminal Misc.-M No. 26727 of 2011 [4] called upon for further investigation. She shall also be bound by all the conditions as contained in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. The petition stands disposed of. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 3.10.2011 mk