R. N. Aggarwal,j. ( 1 ) THE deceased Smt. Rumali (M, Roopmati was thedaughter of Ram Sarup petitioner and she was married to Chhatarpal respondent no. 7 on 6. 3. 1987. As per custom prevailing in the petitioner s region aceremony called gauna takes place after the marriage and according tothat custom the bride is taken to the matrimonial home after the gauna ceremony. In the case of the deceased she was sent only for three daysto stay in her husband s house after the marriage and thereafter she wasbrought back to her parents house in order that she could be sent to thematrimonial home ceremoniously after the Gauna. The Gauna ceremony tookplace on 19. 4. 1987 and it was after that ceremony that the deceased was takento the matrimonial home on that very day by her husband Chhatarpal around9. 00 P. M. after the Gauna ceremony. The house of the husband being premisesno. X-520, J. J. Colony, Mangolpuri, Delhi comprised only one room tenementof 25 sq. yds. and it comprised of one room with the small court-yard in frontof which the stairs led to the terrace. Under-neath the stairs there is a makeshift kitchen and adjoining the stairs, there is a bath room and a door leadingto the by-lane. In the early hours of the morning of the next day, i. e. on20. 4. 1987 at about 5. 00 A. M. there was fire in the said room of this houseand on the opening of the door of the room from outside the deceased bridesmt. Rumali was found dead with fire bum injuries and she was at that timein a kneeling position when she was burning. In this room only the deceasedand her husband were there in the night intervening 19th and 20/04/1987whereas the remaining members including the in-laws of the deceased were onthe terrace. ( 2 ) MRS. Jai Kumari is Assistant Commissioner of Police (Crime againstwomen Cell) New Delhi. She is respondent no. 5 in this case and she hasdeposed to an affidavit wherein she has stated that she went to the spot on21. 4. 1987 and again on 6. 5. 1987 and recorded the statements of the followingpersons :- 1. Sh. Chhatar Pal, husband of the deceased. 2. Smt. Bhagwan Devi, mother-in-law of the deceased. 3. Smt. Anandi Devi, neighbour of her in-laws. 4. Smt. Shanti Devi, neighbour of her in-laws. 5. Sh. Sumer Singh, mediator. 4. 1987 and again on 6. 5. 1987 and recorded the statements of the followingpersons :- 1. Sh. Chhatar Pal, husband of the deceased. 2. Smt. Bhagwan Devi, mother-in-law of the deceased. 3. Smt. Anandi Devi, neighbour of her in-laws. 4. Smt. Shanti Devi, neighbour of her in-laws. 5. Sh. Sumer Singh, mediator. 6. Sh. Hoti Lal, uncle of the deceased. She has also deposed that on 3,5. 1987 all the goods given to the deceasedby her father in her marriage were returned to him by the in-laws of thedeceased in her presence as also in the presence of a Social Worker Smt. Satyachadha. She further deposed that the enquiries conducted by her revealedthat the deceased Smt. Rumali committed suicide because she was not at allsatisfied with the physical and mental calibre of her husband Chhatarpal whowas not even a good looking boy and was a simpleton and that the deceasedwas not prepared to go to her in-laws house on 19. 4,1987 but was persuadedto go there by her parents in the late evening on that day. According to herthe enquiry further revealed that Chhatarpal was a person who was muchbelow the expectations of the deceased. The enquiry was also conducted byshri U. C. Shringi, Executive Magistrate under S. 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 at the spot on 20. 4. 1987 and he recorded the statements of thefollowing persons:- "1. Smt. Angoree, mother of the daceased. 2. Smt. Shanti Devi r/o X-522. 3. Sh. Ram Kishan, father-in-law of deceased. 4. Sh. Chhatar Pal, husband of the deceased. 5. Smt. Anandi Devi r/o X-539. "the report of the learned magistrate is dated 26. 5. 1987 and his ultimateopinion is given therein and is reproduced below :- "from the fore-going facts I am of the considered view that thedeath is due to burning and may be termed us suicide in the absenceof any other evidence to the contrary. Asurmise may be hazardedthat the girl probably was below 18 years of age and was marriedagainst her wishes. She did not desire to live with her husband. Thischild marriage had led to a trauma leading to the death by burning. " ( 3 ) IN the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiaby the petitioner Ram Sarup father of the deceased, the petitioner has assertedthat on 24. 3. She did not desire to live with her husband. Thischild marriage had led to a trauma leading to the death by burning. " ( 3 ) IN the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiaby the petitioner Ram Sarup father of the deceased, the petitioner has assertedthat on 24. 3. 1987 after the marriage of the deceased but before the Gaunaceremony, there was a fair (Budho Mata Ka Mela) in the same area where thedeceased was living along with her parents. Respondent No. 7 Chhatarpalhusband of the deceased came to the house of the petitioner and took thedeceased to the fair. Under the garb of merry making and enjoyment but infact he had the intention to convey that she should bring more dowry and he (Chhatarpal) asked the deceased in a very clear and uniquivocal terms thatshe must get a sofa-set, television and a ceiling fan more and in case she failedto bring the same, she would be killed. He has asserted that the mystery of thedeath of the deceased on the very next morning of the Gauna ceremony inthe matrimonial home with fire burns was very shocking and it was not a caseof suicide but was a case of murder and bride burning. He has also challengedthe omission of registering a case against the husband and the in-laws of thedeceased at illegal by asserting that there has been failure on the part ofrespondents 1 to 6 by refusing to exercise the power vested in them under thelaw. He has also asserted that the police has not only failed to comply withthe mandatory provision of law by not recording the FIR but instead theythreatened the petitioner who wanted to complain that if he went on insistinglike that he would be in trouble. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in the room inthe matrimonial home wherein the husband of the deceased is alleged to besleeping despite the fire and made to come out after the deceased had diedand he came out of the room after the door of the room was opened fromoutside by the father of the husband, tended to make the occurrence a foulplay. ( 5 ) THE report of Shri Shringi, Executive Magistrate, shows that thefather of the bride had made allegations of dowry demand against the in-lawsof the deceased and that he assured them that he would try his level best tomeet their demands and that they had demanded dowry on 12th and 1 3/04/1987 when they came to his house. The petitioner and his wife havealso stated before the Magistrate that her in-laws had demanded dowry fromthe deceased during the mela and had also threatened her when she was takenby them there. ( 6 ) IT would be necessary to refer to the presumption contemplated bysection 113a of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and this provision is reproducedbelow: "113a. When the question is whether the commission of suicide bya woman had been abetted by her husband or any relative of herhusband and it is shown that she had committed suicide within aperiod of seven years from the date of her marriage and that herhusband or such relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty,the court may presume, having regard to all the other circumstancesof the case, that such other suicide had been abetted by her husbandor by such relative of her husband. Explanation.-For the purposes of this ection: "cruelty" shallhave the same meaning as in section 498. of the Indian Penal Code. " ( 7 ) AS in the explanation attached to section 113a set out above as theword cruelty is to have the same meaning as assigned to it in section 498aof the Indian Penal Code. Section 498a of the Indian Penal Code is also setout below: "498a. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjectingher to cruelty.-Whoever, being the husband or the relative of thehusband of a wowan, subjects such woman to cruelty shall bepunished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to threeyears and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation-For the purposes of this section, "cruelty" means. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjectingher to cruelty.-Whoever, being the husband or the relative of thehusband of a wowan, subjects such woman to cruelty shall bepunished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to threeyears and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation-For the purposes of this section, "cruelty" means. (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely todrive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injuryor danger to life, limb or health (whether mental orphysical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is witha view to coercing her or any person related to her to meetany unlawful demand for any property or valuable securityor is on account of failure by her or any person related toher to meet such demand. "as the marriage of Smt. Rumali (deceased) with respondent no. 7chhatarpal had taken place about 1 months prior to her alleged suicidewhich is, thus, within a period of 7 years from the date of her marriage, andher husband and her in-laws are alleged by both the parents of the deceased ashaving caused harassment to the deceased with a view to coercing her and herparents to meet their unlawful dowry demand and consequently the presumption referred to in S. 113a of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 can be raisedthat such suicide had been abetted by the husband and the in-laws of thedeceased Smt. Rumali and this fact appears to have been lost sight of bymrs. Jai Kumari, Assistant Coinmissioner of Police (Crime against Womencell) respondent no. 5 as also by the learned Executive Magistrate Mr. U. C. Shringi who held the enquiry under S. 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973. ( 8 ) UNDER the aforesaid circumstances, the police ought to have recordedthe first in formation report on the complaint of the petitioner who is thefather of the deceased and registered a case on the basis thereof and then shouldhave investigated the case thoroughly, and as the investigation was not done inthis fashion, the grievance of the petitioner cannot be, thus, said to be withoutjustification. ( 9 ) WE are, thus, of the view that on the material collected by Smt. Jaikumari, Assistant Commissioner of Police (Crime against Women Cell) Newdelhi during investigation and the material collected by the Executive Magistrate Mr. ( 9 ) WE are, thus, of the view that on the material collected by Smt. Jaikumari, Assistant Commissioner of Police (Crime against Women Cell) Newdelhi during investigation and the material collected by the Executive Magistrate Mr. U. C. Shringi during enquiry held by him under section 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, a prima facic case is made out for theregistration of a case under the relevant provisions of law and so we directthat a case be registered and investigated. We further direct that after theregistration of the case the investigation of the case shall be entrusted bythe Commissioner of Police to an officer not below the rank of the Deputycommissioner of Police. With these observations, the petition is disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to Commissioner of Police.