Despite 3 Police Enquiries Rejecting His Poisoning Claim, Father-In-Law’s Murder Complaint Against Daughter-In-Law Proceeds: P&H HC Upholds Summons

The petitioner was married to the respondent’s son, Kanwar Lal. On 29 September 2009, Kanwar Lal became ill after dinner and died while being taken to hospital; the medical evidence attributed his death to aluminium phosphide poisoning.

Initially, the respondent told the police that his son had consumed poison and that he suspected no one. He later accused the petitioner of administering the poison. Three police enquiries found no basis for the allegation, and no FIR was registered.

The respondent then filed a private complaint under Section 302 IPC. After recording preliminary evidence from ten witnesses, the Magistrate summoned the petitioner; the Sessions Court dismissed her revision. She sought quashing of the summoning order, revisional order, complaint and ensuing proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., a Magistrate considering a private complaint must determine whether there is sufficient ground to proceed, not whether the evidence is sufficient to convict; the Magistrate’s judicially exercised discretion is not to be replaced by the High Court’s own assessment of the merits (Bhushan Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi).

The High Court may quash proceedings under Section 482 where the allegations, even if accepted, do not disclose an offence or the proceedings amount to an abuse of process (State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal).

Material produced by an accused may justify quashing only where it is of sterling and impeccable quality, undisputed or incapable of justifiable refutation, and would rule out the accusation (Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor).

Police enquiries that do not culminate in an investigation report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. do not bind a Magistrate taking cognizance on a complaint; a complainant may approach the Magistrate when police take no action (Minu Kumari v. State of Bihar).

Section 174 Cr.P.C. proceedings are directed to ascertaining the apparent cause of death, not determining who caused it (Pedda Narayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh).

Following a dismissed revision, inherent jurisdiction remains available but is to be exercised sparingly to prevent grave miscarriage of justice or abuse of process (Krishnan v. Krishnaveni).

The Court also noted that the complaint, instituted in 2010, remained governed by the Cr.P.C. under Section 531(2)(a) of the BNSS.

The police enquiry reports were opinions formed during preliminary enquiries, not Section 173 reports, and could not determine the Magistrate’s decision on the complaint.

The respondent’s earlier statement under Section 174 Cr.P.C. conflicted with his later allegation, but the respondent disputed the circumstances in which the earlier statement was recorded; resolving that conflict and assessing the delay required evidence and could not be undertaken in a Section 482 proceeding.

The complaint was supported by preliminary evidence from witnesses who attributed to Kanwar Lal an oral statement that the petitioner had given him poison, as well as medical evidence establishing poisoning.

The earlier statement and enquiry reports were therefore disputed and not material of such unimpeachable quality as to demolish the accusation without trial.

Although the revisional court incorrectly stated that an enquiry was ongoing, that error did not undermine its conclusion; no grave miscarriage of justice or abuse of process was shown.

It found no illegality or perversity in the summoning or revisional orders and dismissed the petition.

The interim stay was vacated, the petitioner was directed to appear before the trial court within 30 days, and expeditious proceedings were requested; all observations were made without expressing an opinion on the merits.