2026:HHC:43836 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 21 of 2026 Reserved on: 29.09.2026 Date of Decision: 07.10.2026 Madhu Rani & others .... Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & others .... Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the petitioner : Mr Ankit Dhiman, Advocate. For respondents : Mr Tarun Pathak, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents 1 and 2/State. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioners have filed the present petition for quashing of FIR No. 170 of 2024, dated 31.05.2024, registered at Police Station Sadar Una, District Una, H.P. for the commission of offences punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and consequential proceedings arising out of the FIR. 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the police received information on 31.05.2024 2 2026:HHC:43836 that one person was brought to the hospital after consuming poison. The police visited the hospital and found that the person had died. Informant Ravinder Kumar, father of the deceased Vishal, made a statement to the police that Vishal was married in November 2023 to Madhu as per Hindu rites and customs. Vishal had not taken any dowry during his marriage. Baby (Vishal's mother-in-law), Mamta (Vishal’s sister-in-law) and Madhu (Vishal's wife) started harassing Vishal by saying that he had insulted them by not taking the dowry. Madhu was residing in her parental home before the death of Vishal. Vishal had gone to Madhu’s parental home on 28.05.2024. He called Priyanka, his sister-in-law, at about 02:30 a.m., and he appeared to be perturbed. Sushil called Vishal and heard Madhu arguing with Vishal. Vishal consumed poison on 31.05.2024. The police registered the FIR and investigated the matter. The police found, after investigation, that Ravinder Kumar, the informant, had not accepted the gold ring given to him during the marriage, saying that he did not want to accept anything. This led to a commotion during the marriage, but bride’s relatives intervened them and the marriage was solemnised. As per the result of the analysis, 3 2026:HHC:43836 phosphine gas was detected in the viscera. The police completed the investigation and filed the charge sheet before the Court. 3. Being aggrieved by the registration of the FIR and filing of the charge sheet, the petitioners have approached this Court for the quashing of the FIR and consequential proceedings arising out of it. It has been asserted that Madhu, wife of the deceased, was pregnant and she had no reason to abet the commission of suicide. No specific allegations were made against the petitioners. The continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of the court. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the FIR and consequential proceedings arising out of it be quashed. 4. I have heard Mr Ankit Dhiman, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr Tarun Pathak, learned Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 and 2/State. 5. Mr Ankit Dhiman, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the allegations in the FIR, even if accepted to be correct, do not constitute the commission of any offence. The prosecution is relying upon vague allegations. The petitioner Madhu and the deceased Vishal had met each other on 4 2026:HHC:43836 28.05.2024, and Vishal had committed suicide on 31.05.2024. There was a considerable gap between the meeting and the suicide, which shows that the meeting was not the reason for committing suicide. The prosecution should come up with specific allegations, and it is not sufficient to make generalised and vague allegations. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the FIR and consequential proceedings arising out of it be quashed. He relied on the following judgments in support of his submissions: 1. R. Shashirekha vs. State of Karnataka & others 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 363; 2. Ayyub & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 2025:INSC 168 3. Mohit Singhal & Anr. vs. The State of Uttarakhand & Ors. 2023: INSC 1035 4. Meenki Devi vs State of H.P. a/w connected matter 2026: HHC:6; 5. Narotma Devi vs. State of H.P. & Anr. in Cr.MMO No. 128 of 2026 decided on 16.07.2026 6. Vivek Sharma vs. State of H.P. & Anr. 2026:HHC 33751; 7. Parbhu vs. The State represented by the Inspector of Police & anr SLP (Crl.) Diary No. 39981 of 2022 decided on30.01.2024; 8. Sunil Chauhan vs. State of Haryana & Anr. a/w connected matter 2024:PHHC: 113327 5 2026:HHC:43836 9. Kavita vs. State of Haryana a/w connected matter 2024:PHHC:066924; 6. Mr Tarun Pathak, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State submitted that the informant’s refusal to accept the gold ring during the marriage led to a commotion. The petitioners harassed the deceased for not accepting the dowry. The deceased had told many persons that he was fed up with the behaviour of the petitioners. He had also told, when he was being taken to the hospital, that he had committed suicide because of the petitioners’ behaviour. This Court should not go into the validity, correctness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR. The learned trial Court is seized of the matter, and the petitioners should be relegated to avail the remedies available to them as per the law. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 7. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 8. The law relating to quashing of FIR was explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in B.N. John v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 7 as under: - 6 2026:HHC:43836 “7. As far as the quashing of criminal cases is concerned, it is now more or less well settled as regards the principles to be applied by the court. In this regard, one may refer to the decision of this Court in State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, wherein this Court has summarised some of the principles under which FIR/complaints/criminal cases could be quashed in the following words: “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code, except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence 7 2026:HHC:43836 collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable based on which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings, and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to a private and personal grudge.” (emphasis added) 8. Of the aforesaid criteria, clause no. (1), (4), and (6) would be of relevance to us in this case. In clause (1), it has been mentioned that where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, then the FIR or the complaint can be quashed. 8 2026:HHC:43836 As per clause (4), where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non- cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order dated by the Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155 (2) of the CrPC, and in such a situation, the FIR can be quashed. Similarly, as provided under clause (6), if there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the CrPC or the concerned Act under which the criminal proceedings are instituted, such proceedings can be quashed.” 9. This position was reiterated in Ajay Malik v. State of Uttarakhand, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 185, wherein it was observed: “8. It is well established that a High Court, in exercising its extraordinary powers under Section 482 of the CrPC, may issue orders to prevent the abuse of court processes or to secure the ends of justice. These inherent powers are neither controlled nor limited by any other statutory provision. However, given the broad and profound nature of this authority, the High Court must exercise it sparingly. The conditions for invoking such powers are embedded within Section 482 of the CrPC itself, allowing the High Court to act only in cases of clear abuse of process or where intervention is essential to uphold the ends of justice. 9. It is in this backdrop that this Court, over the course of several decades, has laid down the principles and guidelines that High Courts must follow before quashing criminal proceedings at the threshold, thereby pre- empting the Prosecution from building its case before the Trial Court. The grounds for quashing, inter alia, contemplate the following situations: (i) the criminal complaint has been filed with mala fides; (ii) the FIR represents an abuse of the legal process; (iii) no prima facie offence is made out; (iv) the dispute is civil in nature; (v) the complaint contains vague and omnibus allegations; 9 2026:HHC:43836 and (vi) the parties are willing to settle and compound the dispute amicably (State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335) 10. Similar view was taken in Bhajan Lal (supra), A.M. Mohan (Supra), G. Sagar (supra) and Niharika Infrastructure (supra). 11. The present petition is to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 12. The informant, Ravinder Kumar, stated that he had returned the gold ring to Sukhdev, father of the bride. Sukhdev misbehaved with him. The relatives of the bride asked Vishal to persuade the informant to take the ring, but Vishal and the informant refused. Mamta, Baby and Sukhdev stated that they had been insulted in the presence of their relatives. Madhu and her sister Mamta also misbehaved during the ceremony of Jathre Poojan and insulted Vishal and his relatives. The informant asked Mamta why she had created a scene when it was made clear before the marriage that no dowry would be taken by Vishal, and she left with her husband. Madhu also quarrelled with Vishal after the marriage. She misbehaved with the informant. Vishal used to disclose that Madhu, Baby, Sukhdev and Mamta were repeatedly harassing him. 10 2026:HHC:43836 13. Raksha Devi, informant's wife, Priyanka, sister-in- law of Vishal, Sushil Kumar, brother of Vishal, also made similar statements. 14. Gulshar Muhammad stated that a commotion had arisen after the informant had refused to accept the gold ring. Vishal was perturbed on 17.05.2024, and disclosed that he would leave the job. Gulshar Muhammad disclosed this fact to Sushil. 15. Narinder Singh told the police that he had received a call on 31.05.2024, at about 08:19 a.m. from Vishal, who asked him to visit Vishal's room. He (Narinder Singh) enquired from Vishal about the reason, and Vishal disclosed that he had consumed something. He (Narinder Singh) replied that Vishal should not joke in the morning and that he was going to perform his duties. Narinder Singh again received a call from Vishal at about 08:21 a.m., who said that he had consumed poison and should be taken to the hospital. Narinder Singh went to Vishal's room, where Vishal was lying on a bed. Vishal stated that he was deeply perturbed. His wife Madhu and her relatives were harassing him, and he had consumed poison because of their harassment. He should be taken to the hospital. The doctor made 11 2026:HHC:43836 enquiries in the hospital, and Vishal replied that he had consumed celphos. Vishal succumbed to the effects of the poison. 16. The statement made by Vishal to this witness immediately before he was being taken to the hospital was the last statement made by Vishal narrating the circumstances related to his death. Therefore, the same would fall within the definition of a dying declaration. 17. The statements of these witnesses, prima facie, reveal that the informant had refused to accept the gold ring gifted to him during the marriage, which led to a commotion and a feeling amongst the relatives of the bride that they had been insulted in front of their relatives. This continued even after the solemnisation of the marriage, and Madhu continued to misbehave with Vishal. Priyanka had called Vishal and found that Vishal and Madhu were quarrelling with each other. Vishal had also told Narinder Singh before his death that the reason for consuming poison was the misbehaviour of Madhu and her relatives. All these circumstances, prima facie, show that the petitioners had created such circumstances that Vishal was left with no option but to commit suicide. It was laid down by the 12 2026:HHC:43836 Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narayan Malhari Thorat v. Vinayak Deorao Bhagat, (2019) 13 SCC 598, that when there was an altercation 3-4 days before the suicide and the suicide note made definite allegations, the High Court should not enter into a question whether the accused had requisite intention to abet the commission of suicide. It was observed: 12. We now consider the facts of the present case. There are definite allegations that the first respondent would keep on calling the wife of the victim on her mobile and keep harassing her, which allegations are supported by the statements of the mother and the wife of the victim recorded during investigation. The record shows that 3-4 days prior to the suicide, there was an altercation between the victim and the first respondent. In the light of these facts, coupled with the fact that the suicide note made definite allegations against the first respondent, the High Court was not justified in entering into question whether the first respondent had the requisite intention to aid or instigate or abet the commission of suicide. At this juncture, when the investigation was yet to be completed and the charge-sheet, if any, was yet to be filed, the High Court ought not to have gone into the aspect whether there was requisite mental element or intention on part of the respondent. 18. It was submitted that there are various discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses, which made their version highly doubtful. The informant and the other witnesses had made false statements to implicate the petitioners. This submission will not help the petitioners. It was held in Punit 13 2026:HHC:43836 Beriwala v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2025 SCC OnLine SC 983, that the Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC has to treat the allegations in the FIR as correct. It was observed: - “29. It is settled law that the power of quashing of a complaint/FIR should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, and while exercising this power, the Court must believe the averments and allegations in the complaint to be true and correct. It has been repeatedly held that, save in exceptional cases where non- interference would result in a miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences. Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court should not be used routinely according to its whims or caprice.” 19. It was laid down in Maneesha Yadav v. State of U.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 643, that the Court exercising inherent jurisdiction to quash the FIR cannot go into the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations. It was observed: - “13. As has already been observed hereinabove, the Court would not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint at the stage of quashing of the proceedings under Section 482 Cr. P.C. However, the allegations made in the FIR/complaint, if taken at their face value, must disclose the commission of an offence and make out a case against the accused. At the cost of repetition, in the present case, the allegations made in the FIR/complaint, even if taken at their face value, do not disclose the commission of an offence or make out a case against the accused. We are of the considered view that the present case would fall under Category-3 of the 14 2026:HHC:43836 categories enumerated by this Court in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra). 14. We may gainfully refer to the observations of this Court in the case of Anand Kumar Mohatta v. State (NCT of Delhi), Department of Home (2019) 11 SCC 706: 2018 INSC 1060: “14. First, we would like to deal with the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for Respondent 2 that once the charge sheet is filed, the petition for quashing of the FIR is untenable. We do not see any merit in this submission, keeping in mind the position of this Court in Joseph Salvaraj A. v. State of Gujarat [Joseph Salvaraj A. v. State of Gujarat, (2011) 7 SCC 59: (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 23]. In Joseph Salvaraj A. [Joseph Salvaraj A. v. State of Gujarat, (2011) 7 SCC 59: (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 23, this Court, while deciding the question of whether the High Court could entertain the Section 482 petition for quashing of FIR when the charge-sheet was filed by the police during the pendency of the Section 482 petition, observed: (SCC p. 63, para 16) “16. Thus, the general conspectus of the various sections under which the appellant is being charged and is to be prosecuted would show that the same is not made out even prima facie from the complainant's FIR. Even if the charge sheet had been filed, the learned Single Judge [Joseph Saivaraj A. v. State of Gujarat, 2007 SCC OnLine Guj 365] could have still examined whether the offences alleged to have been committed by the appellant were prima facie made out from the complainant's FIR, charge- sheet, documents, etc. or not.” 20. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dharambeer Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand, (2025) 1 SCC 392; 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1894 that the Court cannot conduct a mini- 15 2026:HHC:43836 trial while exercising jurisdiction under section 482 of CrPC. It was observed on page 397: “17. This Court, in a series of judgments, has held that while exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the High Court is not supposed to hold a mini-trial. A profitable reference can be made to the judgment in CBI v. Aryan Singh [CBI v. Aryan Singh, (2023) 18 SCC 399: 2023 SCC OnLine SC 379]. The relevant paragraph from the judgment is extracted hereunder: (SCC paras 6-7) 6. … As per the cardinal principle of law, at the stage of discharge and/or quashing of the criminal proceedings, while exercising the powers under Section 482CrPC, the Court is not required to conduct the mini-trial. … 7. … At the stage of discharge and/or while exercising the powers under Section 482CrPC, the Court has very limited jurisdiction and is required to consider ‘whether any sufficient material is available to proceed further against the accused for which the accused is required to be tried or not’.” 21. This position was reiterated in Muskan v. Ishaan Khan (Sataniya), 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2355, wherein it was observed: - 22. On the aspect of the powers of the Courts under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C., it is settled that at the stage of quashing, the Court is not required to conduct a mini-trial. Thus, the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. with respect to quashing is somewhat limited, as the Court has to only consider whether any sufficient material is available to proceed against the accused or not. If sufficient material is available, the power under Section 482 should not be exercised. Xxxx 16 2026:HHC:43836 27. We are of the view that the High Court has erred in law by embarking upon an enquiry with regard to the credibility or otherwise of the allegations in the complaints and the FIR. Normally, for quashing an FIR, it must be shown that there exists no prima facie case against the accused persons…” 22. Therefore, it is impermissible for this Court to conduct a mini-trial to determine whether the allegations in the FIR are correct or not. 23. Meenki Devi (supra), and R.Shashirekha (supra) dealt with the judgment of conviction and are based upon the appreciation of evidence. Since the matter is at the initial stage, the cited judgments do not apply to the present case. 24. In Prabhu (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that there was no evidence that the action of the accused instigated the deceased to commit suicide. In the present case, the dying declaration specifically attributes the reason for suicide to the harassment by the petitioners. In Sunil Chauhan (supra), the money was not paid to the deceased, and this was not held to constitute any abetment. In Kavita (supra), many discrepancies were found, and there was no suicide note. In Ayub (supra), there was nothing to conclude that any act of the accused had led the deceased to commit suicide. In Narotma Devi 17 2026:HHC:43836 (supra), the teacher had slapped the child, who committed suicide, and this was held to be insufficient to amount to abetment. In Vivek Sharma (supra), it was held that refusal to solemnise marriage does not constitute any abetment. In Mohit Singhal (supra), the abuse was not held to be sufficient. 25. The cited judgments turned on their own facts. In the present case, the deceased was perturbed by the harassment meted out to him by the petitioners and their family members. He had expressed a desire to leave the job and told Narinder that he had consumed poison because of the constant harassment meted out to him. Hence, the facts of the cited case do not apply to the present case. 26. It is undisputed that the matter is pending before the Learned Trial Court. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Iqbal v. State of U.P., (2023) 8 SCC 734: 2023 SCC OnLine SC 949 that when the matter is pending before the learned Trial Court, it should be left to appreciate it. It was observed: “At the same time, we also take notice of the fact that the investigation has been completed and the charge sheet is ready to be filed. Although the allegations levelled in the FIR do not inspire any confidence, particularly in the absence of any specific date, time, etc. of the alleged offences, we are of the view that the appellants should 18 2026:HHC:43836 prefer a discharge application before the trial court under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). We say so because even according to the State, the investigation is over and the charge sheet is ready to be filed before the competent court. In such circumstances, the trial court should be allowed to look into the materials which the investigating officer might have collected, forming part of the charge sheet. If any such discharge application is filed, the trial court shall look into the materials and take a call whether any discharge case is made out or not.” 27. No other point was urged. 28. In view of the above, the present petition fails, and it is dismissed. 29. The observation made hereinbefore shall remain confined to the disposal of the petition and will have no bearing whatsoever on the merits of the main case. ( Rakesh Kainthla ) Judge 10th October, 2026 (Ravinder)