IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.882 of 2009 (U/s 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure) Ishwar Kumar Bhagat & others ………. Applicants Versus State of Uttarakhand & another ..…. Respondents Dated: August 10, 2011 Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. Heard Sri Ramji Srivastava, Advocate for the applicants, Sri M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the State/respondent no.1 and Sri S.S. Chauhan, Advocate for the respondent no.2. By way of this criminal miscellaneous application, the applicants have sought the quashing of the entire proceedings of the criminal case no.4278 of 2009 State Vs. Smt. Sarika Bhatia & others, which is pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-III, Dehradun and the cognizance taken therein. The background facts of this petition are that one Sonu Bhatia (deceased) S/o Manohar Lal Bhatia was wedded with Smt. Sarika Bhatia. Both the families originally hail from Dehradun city itself. The couple had two minor sons, named Master Manav and Master Naman. On one fateful day of dated 27.8.2008, Sonu Bhatia was found being hanged from the ceiling of his bedroom. One Mr. Anil Grover informed the police. Police came at the spot and found one suicide note lying beneath the bed. In that suicide note, it was stated that Sonu Bhatia blamed his mother in law, father in law, wife and brother in law for his death. That note contained the will of Sonu Bhatia in the words depriving his own sons from his 2 inheritance. He also expressed the will not to condone his children (inherently wife too) otherwise his soul will not be set at rest. This suicide note, which is annexure 3 with this petition discloses other monetary credit and debits of the deceased. The Panchayatnama was prepared on dated 27.8.2008 in presence of police as well as Sri Anil Grover besides the neighbours. The case was registered and investigated thereafter. As a result of investigation, the chargesheet was submitted against all the applicants with the offence of Section 306 IPC whereupon the cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate concerned. It is this chargesheet and the cognizance order which has been challenged by the applicants through this petition. Learned counsel of the applicant read the statements of the witnesses recorded by Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C., which includes the statement of Sri Sanjay Bhatia (brother of deceased) and Bhagwati Devi (mother of deceased). The attention of the Court has also been drawn towards the litigation inter se parties after the death of Sonu Bhatia. This litigation includes another cases against the applicants in crime no.27/2009 for the offence of Sections 147, 452, 323 and 504 IPC, which was initiated by Manohar Lal Bhatia (father in law of Smt. Sarika) and it has been argued that in the said case, the applicants had to surrender and seek bail from the court concerned and the trial is still pending. Smt. Sarika filed O.S. No.195 of 2009 joining her sons seeking an injunction against Manohar Lal Bhatia and his family members not to interfere in the dwelling in her in-laws house. It is alleged that she used to reside along with her husband and children in a separate portion in the same house. In that original suit, ad interim injunction was granted in favour of Smt. Sarika Bhatiya and her sons but Sri Manohal 3 Lal and his family members disregarding the orders of the court, did not allow Smt. Sarika to reside in the house, wherefor the contempt proceedings under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC were drawn by the court and are pending. Smt. Sarika Bhatiya instituted another complaint case no.3329 of 2009 under the Domestic Violence Act wherein the order was passed on 18.2.2010 by Additional CJM-III Dehradun in her favour. But these orders are also not being regarded by Manohar Lal and his family. Disregard by Manohar Lal Bhatiya and his family members shown towards the orders of the Court made in Original Suit as well as in the case of Domestic Violence Act, is quite separate an aspect but the fact remains that the chargesheet was submitted after investigation against the applicants and the strongest basis of the submission of chargesheet, inter alia, was the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Uttarakhand dated 15.9.2009. In that report, the disputed writing on the alleged suicide note and the admitted writing of the deceased, which were taken from his bank account papers, were compared by the Expert in Forensic Science Laboratory and the view was expressed that both the writings have been written by one and the same person. Learned counsel for the applicant has also relied upon a precedent of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Netai Dutta Vs. State of W.B. reported in (2005) 2 SCC 659”. In that case, which was based on a suicide and the FIR was lodged, the Hon’ble Apex Court was pleased to quash the FIR itself and had expressed the view that simply by naming any person, it not sufficient to attribute the criminal liability for the offence of Section 306 IPC. In that case, the deceased was working in an office and the Hon’ble Apex Court was of the view that the deceased was very much dissatisfied with the working conditions at the work place. There was no averment 4 in the alleged suicide note that the appellant Netai Dutta (Supra) had caused any harm to him or was in any way responsible for the delay in paying salary to deceased Pranav Kumar Nag. In those circumstances, the Hon’ble Apex Court quashed the FIR against the appellant which was lodged for the offence of Section 306 IPC. The facts of the present case are not similar to the precedent, which has been relied by the learned counsel of the applicant. This is the suicide note by a husband specifically attributing the cause and blame of his death to his wife, father in law, mother in law and brother in law. He has also expressed his desire to devest the children from his inheritance. The wordings of this suicide note reflects his grievance towards his children and wife, otherwise he has expressed that his soul will not be at peace. It can also be observed that the inter se behavior between the husband and wife may not be objective everytime making it noticeable by everybody. The subjective behavior and attitude, which the couple have towards each other, becomes the cause of annoyance to one person towards the other. So, the contention of learned counsel of the applicant that if the deceased was dissatisfied or had the serious grouse towards his wife and in- laws, then the FIR could have been lodged earlier, is not acceptable because in the matrimonial relations, to lodge an FIR is a very remote resort. For every default in the behavior or for every annoyance, the FIR is not lodged. So, in view of the above, this Court is of the view that the chargesheet based on the collection of evidence and particularly on the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Uttarakhand is not interferable. This Court should allow proceeding of the trial in the competent court. In view of the above, this petition is meritless and liable to be dismissed. Petition is dismissed, but it is made clear 5 that any of the observations stated hereinabove will not prejudice the opinion of the Court during or at the end of the trial. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) 10.08.2011 Rajeev Dang