JUDGMENT S.I. Jafri 1. The instant petition in hand has been preferred by P. K. Srivastava, his brother Dr. Amod Kumar Srivastava and their father Bala Parsad Srivastava, applicants invoking this court's extra-ordinary inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the charge-sheet submitted by C. B., C. I. D. Lucknow on 11-3-1986 in case Crime No. 528 of 1986 under Section 302/120-B/34/20I/498 IPC in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mirzapur and further to set aside the order dated 17-5-1986 thereby summoning the applicants as accused passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate Mirzapur in case No. 919 of 1986 on the basis of the aforesaid charge-sheet. Upon a consideration of prima facie case as submitted by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court stayed further proceedings in the aforesaid case on 3-6- 1986, side by side directing the parties to exchange counter and rejoinder affidavits. Subsequent to counter and rejoinder affidavits having been exchanged by the parties and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this court admitted the petition on 21-1-1989. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at a great length. I have also been taken through the statements of witnesses recorded in the case diary and also other documents connected with the case. Before proceeding to discuss the events on the day of occurrence, I would like to delineate preliminaries of the case for better reappraisal of the facts and circumstances involved in the case. They are that applicant P. K. Srivastava, while posted at Mirzapur, first held the post of Sub- Divisional Officer Chunar and later on as Forest Settlement Officer in the month of June 1980. From Mirzapur, he was transferred to different places and held different posts and ultimately when he was suspended from service in connection with this case, he was serving as Additional Commissioner (Administration) Jhansi. 3. Applicant No. 2 Dr. Amod Kumar Srivastava, brother of applicant No. 1 was serving as probationary officer in the Union Bank of India at Mirzapur during the period commencing from January 1981 to May 1981. APPLICANT no. 3 as stated supra, is the father of applicants 1 and 2, who had retired as a Principal of Tata Intermediate College, Jamshedpur, Bihar. 4. In the instant case the victim is unfortunate lady Smt. Mridula Srivastava, wife of P. K. Srivastave applicant. APPLICANT no. 3 as stated supra, is the father of applicants 1 and 2, who had retired as a Principal of Tata Intermediate College, Jamshedpur, Bihar. 4. In the instant case the victim is unfortunate lady Smt. Mridula Srivastava, wife of P. K. Srivastave applicant. The marriage of the applicant P. K. Srivastava was solemnly performed with Smt. Mridula Srivastava (deceased) in the month of November 1977. Sri D P. Srivastava, father of the deceased lady is a retired Deputy Excise Commissioner. After retirement, Sri D. P. Srivastava settled at Allahabad Out of the wedlock, Smt Mridula Srivastava gave birth to a female child, namely Meetu on 22nd of January 1979. At the time of occurrence the child was aged about one and a half years. All the three applicants were residing in one and the same house which had been allotted in the name of P. K. Srivastava applicant in the officers' colony Mirzapur, along with Smt. Mridula Srivatava and the child. Now descending to the events on the day of occurrence, the prosecution ease is that on 14-6-1982 at about 8.30 A.M., a fire had broken out in the house of P. K. Srivastava, engulfing the kitchen which took the toll of the life of Smt. Mridula Srivastava. Upon breaking out of the fire, Sri S. K. Upadhya, City Magistrate, next neighbour in the aforesaid Colony of P. K. Srivastava applicant, sent a telephonic message to Police Station Kotwali, Mirzapur at 8.55 A.M. stating that Smt. Mridula Srivastava, wife of his neighbour P. K. Srivastava had died of burn injuries.. Upon receiving the telephonic message from the aforesaid officer, a note to the aforesaid effect was made in the General Diary at No. 15 at 8.55 A.M. of the aforesaid Police Station Kotwali. Fire brigade was also informed and immediately summoned and ultimately the fire was put out. Smt. Mridula Srivastava was found dead on the ground in the store-room attached to the kitchen with burn injuries all over her body. A telephonic message was also transmitted at the instance of applicant P. K. Srivastava to the father of the deceased, namely, Sri D. P. Srivastava at Allahabad by Sri Rajendra Prasad Singh resident of the same colony at about 9 A.M. At that time Sri Rajendra Parsad Singh was posted as Deputy Director (Consolidation) at Mirzapur. A telephonic message was also transmitted at the instance of applicant P. K. Srivastava to the father of the deceased, namely, Sri D. P. Srivastava at Allahabad by Sri Rajendra Prasad Singh resident of the same colony at about 9 A.M. At that time Sri Rajendra Parsad Singh was posted as Deputy Director (Consolidation) at Mirzapur. On receiving telephonic message, D. P. Srivastava along with his wife arrived at the house of applicant, P. K. Srivastava the same day on 14-6-1982 at 11.45 A.M. 5. Inquest on the dead body of the deceased was conducted by Sub-Inspector Ram Sajiwan Singh in the presence of Sri D. P. Srivastava, father of the deceased. The Panchas opined that the death occurred due to burn injuries. Thereafter, the dead body was sent for post-mortem examination which was performed at 4.15 P.M. on 14-6-1982 by Dr. K. A. Abbas Medical Superintendent of the District Hospital Mirzapur. Upon post-mortem of the dead body, the aforesaid Doctor found the following ante-mortem injuries on her person : "II and III degree burn on the whole body including the face, scalp. The hairs are burnt. Front of face, neck, chest and abdomen, brain, upper and lower limbs including hand and sole the skin is pealed off at places. The back of the whole body is burnt. The thigh legs and foot are also burnt. The fingers are rigid and flowed. The private parts are completely burnt. The hair are completely burnt. The tongue is swollen and protruding out of mouth, burnt clothes are attached to the body." On internal examination the Doctor found that larynx tracheas bronchi were congested. Nothing abnormal was detected in both the lungs. In conclusion, the Doctor opined that the death occurred due to shock and dehydration as a result of ante-mortem burn injuries. 6. Initially, the local police did not register any case assuming the death of the deceased as an accident and embarked upon an enquiry (Daryafthal) under section 174 CrPC on the basis of information sent by S. K. Upadhya, City Magistrate, Mirzapur, vide, G. D. No. 15. I now turn to the facts concerning Sri D. P. Srivastava, father of the deceased. As stated supra, he arrived at the scene of occurrence at 11.45 A. M. on 14-6-1982 and at 10.30 P. M. the same day, he made a written report to the Police Station Kotwali Mirzapur. I now turn to the facts concerning Sri D. P. Srivastava, father of the deceased. As stated supra, he arrived at the scene of occurrence at 11.45 A. M. on 14-6-1982 and at 10.30 P. M. the same day, he made a written report to the Police Station Kotwali Mirzapur. The aforesaid report was entered into G. D. No. 41 of Police Station Kotwali Mirzapur. A perusal of the record reveals that local Police did not find any congnizable offence made out on the basis of the aforesaid report against the applicants connecting them with the crime of causing any harm to the deceased or otherwise having any art or part in the commission of the crime. To be brief, the matter was later on entrusted to C. B. C. I. D. on 14-7-1982 under the orders of State Government and Kishori Lal Dy. S. P. took up the investigation of the case. He continued investigation till 6-11-1982. However, the investigation did not elicit anything pointing to the guilt of the applicants. Thereafter, investigation changed hands and came to be taken up by Sri R. S. Mishra, Dy. Superintendent, C. B. C.I.D., who continued investigation till 7th of April 1984. Lateron, the investigation was taken over by Daya Nidhi Misra, Dy. Superintendent, C. B. C. I. D. on 18-7-1984, who continued investigation till 12-12-1984. Ultimately, the investigation was given to Sri R. S. Yadav, Dy. Superintendent, C. B. C. I. D. Lucknow, who during the course of investigation, got a case under section 302/120-B IPC, registered on 20-2-1985 at 2.30 P. M. in the General Diary of the Police Station Kotwali against the applicants on the charge of murder of Smt. Mridula Srivastava. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted by him in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Mirzapur on 11-3-1986 under section 302/120-B/34/201/498-A IPC against the applicants. 7. During the course of investigation, a number of witnesses, who were in the close proximity of the house of the applicant at the time of occurrence, were examined by the Investigating Officer, namely, Smt. Allo, Sweepress, Smt. Mairoon, Sweepress, Smt. Ulfat Bibi, the domestic servant, Sri Vijai Kali Shanker alias Lal Saheb. Out of the above set of witnesses, none of them stated anything incriminating the applicants in any manner with causing injury to the deceased either directly or by setting her aflame in the kitchen. Out of the above set of witnesses, none of them stated anything incriminating the applicants in any manner with causing injury to the deceased either directly or by setting her aflame in the kitchen. Moreover, a scrutiny of the statements of Smt. Alloo, Smt. Mairoon and Smt. Ulfat Bibi recorded by the Investigating Officer, goes to show that the relations between the deceased and her husband namely, the applicant P. K. Srivastava were cordial and before the accident the deceased was quite cheerful. 8. In the instant case, two Doctors, namely, Dr. V. B. Sahai and Dr. K. K. Singhal were introduced by the prosecution as Medico Legal Experts. Dr. V. B. Sahai, was a Professor and Head of Forensic Medicine, Moti Lal Nehru Medical Colleg, Allahabad, while Sri K. K. Singhal was posted as Special Medico Legal Expert CID. Lucknow. The expert opinion from the aforesaid two Doctors was obtained during the course of investigation by the Police. The expert opinion given by Dr. V. B. Sahai is dated 30th June 1982 while the opinion given by Dr. K. K. Singhal is dated 27-9-1983. Both the Doctors had been furnished with copies of inquest report and also the post mortem report. Dr. V. B. Sahai opined that there was lesser possibility of the suicidal death of Smt. Mridula Srivastava and under the circumstances, it cannot be said with certainty or definitely that Smt. Mridula Srivastava succumbed to burn injuries. Dr. V. B. Sahai gave the aforesaid opinion as an Expert on the request made by the Superintendent of Police Mirzapur. Dr. Singhal opined that there were greater possibilities that someone had caused injury to the barin of the deceased by means of fits kicks rendering the deceased in coma and as such the death had occurred as a result of shock suffocation and injury to the brain. It was also opined that there was also a possibility that some pressure had been exerted on the neck of the deceased. He also opined that after the deceased had died, her body was burnt by sprinkling Kerosene. Ultimately it was opined by the Doctor that the death of Smt. Mridula Srivastava was neither suicidal nor accidental but it was homicidal. Now I turn to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants Sri M. Islam, Advocate. He also opined that after the deceased had died, her body was burnt by sprinkling Kerosene. Ultimately it was opined by the Doctor that the death of Smt. Mridula Srivastava was neither suicidal nor accidental but it was homicidal. Now I turn to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants Sri M. Islam, Advocate. He contended that the Post-mortem report fully establishes that the burn injuries found on the person of the deceased were ante-mortem and the death was caused due to shock and dehydration as a result of ante-mortem injuries. There is no whisper or even an inkling in the Post Mortem Report suggestive of the death being homicidal and taking into account the definite finding in the Post Mortem Report, no credence can be attached either to the opinion of Dr. K. K. Singhal or that of Dr. V. B. Sahai who were examined as Medico Legal Experts in the case. Upon a conspectus of that aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is submitted by the learned counsel that it cannot be safely inferred that Smt. Mridula Srivastava, deceased had met a homicidal death. The learned counsel further submitted that there is not an iota of evidence either oral or documentary to suggest of the applicants having any art or part in the crime and in order to support his contention, the learned counsel has placed reliance on AIR 1977 SC 2274 in which it was laid down that the opinion of the Doctor who conducted autopsy has to be given precedence over the opinion of the Doctor obtained subsequently on the basis of the Post Mortem report as the Doctor conducting the post mortem examination on the dead body, had the advantage of observing the dead body. In the next limb of argument, the learned counsel submitted that belated opinion of the Doctor, namely, Dr Singhal, obtained after a gap of 15 months loses its significance in the light of the presence of ante-mortem burn injuries found in the Post Mortem Report. It was further submitted by the learned counsel that the possibility that opinion of Dr. Singhal who being attached to C.8.C.I.D. Lucknow, cannot be considered as a disinterested and impartial one. With regard to the opinion of Dr. It was further submitted by the learned counsel that the possibility that opinion of Dr. Singhal who being attached to C.8.C.I.D. Lucknow, cannot be considered as a disinterested and impartial one. With regard to the opinion of Dr. V. B. Sahai,' the learned counsel submitted that his opinion cannot be said to be conclusive and under the circumstances the opinion is of no assistance to the prosecution. 9. Now the turn is to discuss the arguments advanced by Sri Jagdish Singh, learned counsel for the complainant. He vehemently urged that in view of conflicting opinions of three Doctors, it would, in the interest of justice, be just and proper to leave the matter to the trial court for being adjudicated upon. He also submitted that opinion of Dr. K. K. Singhal and Dr. V. B. Sahai coupled with the circumstance that Smt. Mridula Srivastava lost her life in the fire which broke out in the house of the applicants, connect and incriminate the accused with the crime. The learned counsel has also adverted to the statements of Sri D. P. Srivastava, father of the deceased along with the contents of diary thereby showing that the relation between the deceased and the applicant P. K. Srivastava were strained. 10. Sri Shivaji Mishra, learned counsel for the State submitted that taking into consideration conflicting opinions clashing with each other on the cause of death and in view of strained relations between the parties pre-existing the date of occurrence, the interest of justice warrants that the matter be thoroughly gone into by the trial court affording full opportunity to the parties in order to test the truthfulness of the witnesses in the case. I again turn back to the submission of the learned counsel for the applicants, who contends that the Expert opinion of Dr. Singhal relied upon by the prosecution is self-contradictory inasmuch as at one place it was given out in the report that the death is asphyxial whereas the death due to asphyxial causes is completely excluded as no change in the colour of blood was found on post mortem examination, which is a must in asphyxial death. Singhal relied upon by the prosecution is self-contradictory inasmuch as at one place it was given out in the report that the death is asphyxial whereas the death due to asphyxial causes is completely excluded as no change in the colour of blood was found on post mortem examination, which is a must in asphyxial death. Modi Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, 10th Edition at page 113 states that in case of asphyxial death the lungs are dark and purple in colour and gorged with dark venous blood, on being cut, they exude forthy dark blood-stained fluid." A similar view was expressed in Parikh Text Book of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology on page 184 and also in Medical Jurisprudence by Dr. Jhala and Dr. V. B. Raju at page 226. It was next submitted by the learned counsel that a scrutiny of post mortem report reveals that colour of blood was normal and there was no change in it and also there was no sign of failure of lungs (respiration). The dead body was found in a pugilistic posture. The post mortem report also shows that the death was due to shock and dehydration as a result of ante-mortem burn injuries. It was further submitted by him that since the death occurred due to neurogenic shock instantaneously, the soot (?) particles in trachea could not be found due to sudden stoppage of respiratory and cardiac centres. This contention of the learned counsel is quite in consonance with the view expressed by Dr. Parikh at pages 131 and 322 and also in Dr. Modi's Jurisprudence and Toxicology at page 185. 11. Dwelling on the facts of the case, the learned counsel for the applicant also submitted that the letters of the applicant and the diary of the deceased Smt. Mridula Srivastava and also the letter written by Sri B. K. Singh all converge to indicate that the applicant was much interested in bringing his wife back and was unable to afford separation of his wife and further he was even prepared to resign his services for her sake. The learned counsel further submitted that the said letters and the diary were quite incapable of imputing the crime to the applicants and it rather demonstrates a deep concern and love of the applicant P. K. Srivastava towards his wife. The learned counsel further submitted that the said letters and the diary were quite incapable of imputing the crime to the applicants and it rather demonstrates a deep concern and love of the applicant P. K. Srivastava towards his wife. Concluding his argument on the facts of the case, the learned counsel contended that there is not an iota of evidence to show that the applicants had committed any offence for which they be put to the rigors of trial, and thus the continuance of the trial against the applicants would be a sheer abuse of the process of the court. To buttress his contention, the learned counsel had relied upon AIR 1988 SC 209 which runs as under : "Where in the opinion of the court, the chances of ultimate conviction are bleak and therefore no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing the criminal prosecution to continue, the court may while taking into consideration the special facts of the case also quash the proceedings even though it may be at preliminary stage". The learned counsel also contended that the occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 14-6-1982. The case against the applicant was registered on 20-2-85 i.e. after a lapse of three years and the charge-sheet was submitted on 11-3-1986 and laying stress on the inordinate delay in registering the case and filing of the charge-sheet i.e. after a lapse of four years since the date of occurrence, the learned counsel vehemently urged that the proceedings are liable to be quashed. It was also submitted that there was inordinate delay in the investigation which is unexplained and under the circumstances the proceedings before the Magistrate are liable to be quashed, and to support his contention, the learned counsel has relied upon 1989 Part I Crime p. 127 State of Punjab v. Kailash Nath and also on AIR 1986 SC 1773 wherein it was held that in a criminal trial where there is inordinate delay, on the part of the Investigating agency in completing the investigation, the case merits being quashed. Similarly, on the question of delay in the investigation and the chances of conviction so far-fetched and bleak, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that allowing such prosecution of the case to proceed, will be harassment to parties and wastage of public time and further held that it is not in public interest that the prosecution should proceed in such cases. Relying upon the aforesaid decisions, the learned counsel submitted that in the instant case, there is no evidence disclosing the commission of any offence muchless the involvement of the applicants in the said offence and considering the nature of evidence collected by the Investigating Officer, the same cannot be acted upon and made the basis of trial much less of a conviction, hence the trial of the applicants would be a sheer abuse of the process of the court and deserves to be quashed. 12. Before proceeding to discuss the merit and demerit of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it would be worthwhile to observe that in exercise of its inherent powers under section 482 CrPC, the court has to meticulously examine whether the prosecution evidence discloses the commission of any offence and whether by allowing the criminal prosecution to continue, there would be no abuse of the process of the court. Without prejudice to the merit of the case, I may observe that a close scrutiny of the facts and circumstances on the record of this case, reveals that there has been undoubtedly inordinate delay in the registration of the case and also the investigation was quite belated. Besides, the Expert opinion obtained from Dr. K. K. Singhal and Dr. V. B. Sahai are quite in contrast of the one in the Post Mortem report. Be that as it may, whatever be the merit of their opinion, the Expert opinion cannot be brushed aside in the jurisdiction under section 482 CrPC without testing the same of its worthiness in the witness box. K. K. Singhal and Dr. V. B. Sahai are quite in contrast of the one in the Post Mortem report. Be that as it may, whatever be the merit of their opinion, the Expert opinion cannot be brushed aside in the jurisdiction under section 482 CrPC without testing the same of its worthiness in the witness box. There is no gain-saying the fact that apparently the chances of conviction in this case ex-facie appear to be bleak and remote, but considering the gruesome nature and brute magnitude of the offence, I am prompted to direct that the matter be gone into in all its pros and cons by the trial court and, thus, I do not consider it a fit case to be interfered by this court under its inherent powers under section 482 CrPC. The offences as henious and gruesome as the instant one, should attract a careful consideration of the courts. In the offences which are as henious, barbaric and gruesome as the instant one specially in the cases of bride burning, the court must show greater sensitivity in so far as the proceedings therein are sought to be quashed invoking the High Court's inherent powers under section 482 CrPC. The offences like bride burning and dacoity and murder are too henious and gruesome and in such cases it is always safe and just to leave the case to be tried and decided by the court below notwithstanding the fact that the circumstances disclose remote possibility of conviction in such cases. To sum up, the High Court need not assume the function of trial court while appreciating the evidence in the case for quashing the proceedings pending before the lower court against the accused. There is no doubt that undue delay in the registration of the case, inordinate delay in the investigation and also in filing the charge-sheet has to visit, upon the case with all its evil consequences but at the same time, there are no special facts and circumstances warranting interference by this court under section 482 CrPC. Besides, in order to secure the ends of justice, it is ostensibly essential that the case be left to be tried and decided by the trial court. Besides, in order to secure the ends of justice, it is ostensibly essential that the case be left to be tried and decided by the trial court. I may also observe that the criminal proceedings pending before the trial court are liable to be quashed under inherent powers of the court under section 482 CrPC only where the facts and circumstances of the case do not point to the guilt of the accused. 13. In the result, considering the facts and circumstances propounded above, the application under section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the proceedings against the applicants, is accordingly dismissed. 14. Before parting with the case, it is made clear that it would be open to the trial court to arrive at its own conclusion and findings without being prejudiced in the least by the observations in the body of the judgment as the above observations were necessitated for the decision of the aforesaid application. It is ultimately directed that the stay order dated 3-6-1986 granted by this court staying further proceedings in the case as well as the arrest of applicants shall stand vacated and the proceedings lying held up, shall start immediately. Application dismissed.