Inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C can be exercised- to give effect to an order under the Code, to prevent abuse of the process of court, and to otherwise secure the ends of justice. If any abuse of the process leading to injustice is brought to the notice of the court, then the court would be justified in preventing injustice by invoking inherent powers. A single Judge comprising Hon’ble Justice N.S. Dhanik, in the matter of Mrs. Shaheena and Km. isha @Samia Vs. State of Uttarakhand, S.H.O and, Nafasat Khan (Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 443 of 2021), dealt with an issue the applicants have approached this court for quashing of chargesheet and cognizance order passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate.
In the present case, respondent no. 3 (Nafasat Khan) had lodged an FIR stating that the marriage of Mr. Kashif (brother of applicant no. 2) had taken place with Smt. Majida (niece of the complainant) and they had a son born out of wedlock. After the marriage, husband, mother-in-law, sister[1]in-law, and brother-in-law of Smt. Majida used to harass her for the dowry and they were instigated by the maternal uncles of the husband of Smt. Majida to kill her. Later on one day the deceased and her husband visited the complainant and informed him about the demand of dowry. the complainant and his brother gave Rs. 50,000/- to Kasif assured him that they would give him some more money to buy a bullet. Thereafter deceased and her husband returned. on 4.7.2020, a phone call came from the matrimonial house of the deceased on the phone of the complainant’s brother and it was informed that Majida has died. Thereby an FIR was registered stating that the deceased was killed for Dowry. An investigation was made and police submitted the chargesheet against the accused persons including the present applicants and thereafter the Court below has summoned the applicants to face the trial.
The counsel for the accused applicants submitted that it was a case of suicide which police showed as murder/dowry death. The counsel also submitted that the son of the deceased was present at the spot but his statement was not recorded by the police. Further, submitted that the door of the room, in which the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself with the fan, was bolted from inside and when the alarm was raised by the child (son of the deceased) from inside the room, the applicants saw the scene from the window. Also, a relative who immediately reached the place of occurrence was a witness but his name was not on the witnesses list. The counsel also submitted that the deceased had illicit relations with someone with whom she had more than 8000 calls. Even on the morning of 4.7.2020 call record details of the mobile phone of the deceased show that such person asked the deceased to get married to him and upon such conversation, the deceased committed suicide. But, this aspect was not investigated by the police. Further, the counsel submitted that the post-mortem report negated the theory of strangulation or homicidal death of the deceased and the said report revealed that there was an injury in ‘V’ shape on the neck which inferred that it was a case of suicide.
The counsel for the complainant submitted that all the ingredients of Section 304B IPC are fulfilled in the present case. The counsel also pointed out the accused persons along with the said child were absconding and their house was locked and they were not 6 cooperating in the investigation and thereafter proceedings under Section 82 and 83 CrPC were initiated. The counsel also pointed that the statement of the child specifically was about the murder of his mother. The counsel also pointed that the post- mortem report revealed two marks on the neck of the deceased one V and another in round shape. The counsel submitted that the deceased was first murdered and then hanged. The counsel also submitted that the husband had knowledge of that illicit relationship and hence had the motive to kill his wife. The court observed – “I am of the opinion that disputed questions of fact are involved in the present case and the allegations made in the complaint if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do prima facie make out a case against the accused applicants.” Thereby the petition was dismissed.
