ORDER S.K. Gangele, J. 1. Shri Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for the applicants. Shri Mukund Bharadwaj, P.P. for respondent/State. Heard. 2. The applicants have filed this application under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the registration of offence under section 302/34 of Indian Penal Code, registered against the applicants vide Crime No. 136/01. 3. Looking to the nature of the case and with the consent of the learned Public Prosecutor, the case is heard and disposed of finally. 4. An offence under section 302/34, Indian Penal Code, vide Crime No. 136/01 was registered at the Police Station Umri, District Bhind against the applicants along with other co-accused persons, namely, Yashpal Singh, Sukhveer Singh. Police filed a charge-sheet against the applicants and also against Sukhveer Singh, Yaspal Singh, Smt. Goli @ Smt. Sharda Devi, wife of Yashpal Singh and Smt. Sharda Devi, wife of Shivcharan Singh Chouhan because the applicants had been absconding, hence, the Court proceeded against Sukhveer Singh, Yaspal Singh, Smt. Goli @ Smt. Sharda Devi, wife of Yashpal Singh and Smt. Sharda Devi, wife of Shivcharan Singh Chouhan that the charge-sheet against the applicants was filed under section 299 of the Criminal Procedure Code declaring them as absconder. As per the applicants, they have not been absconded and they have been residing in the same village. 5. After recording the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the Court acquitted all the accused persons, namely, Sukhveer Singh, Yaspal Singh, Smt. Goli @ Smt. Sharda Devi, wife of Yashpal Singh and Smt. Sharda Devi, wife of Shivcharan Singh Chouhan. In the aforesaid trial, all the prosecution witnesses except the Investigating Officer and the doctor have became hostile, hence the Court acquitted the accused persons from the charge. 6. Learned Counsel for the applicants has submitted that the applicants have falsely been implicated in the case. The F.I.R. was lodged on the basis of some information received from another person, hence, the names of the applicants have been mentioned in the F.I.R. in order to take vengeance against them because they are the sisters-in-law of Sukhveer Singh, husband of deceased Guddi. 7. Brief facts of the case are that Sukhveer Singh had married to deceased Guddi 10-12 years before the incident. On 6-9-2001, deceased Guddi was admitted in District Hospital, Bhind. She received burn injuries. 7. Brief facts of the case are that Sukhveer Singh had married to deceased Guddi 10-12 years before the incident. On 6-9-2001, deceased Guddi was admitted in District Hospital, Bhind. She received burn injuries. In her dying declaration which has recorded on 6-9-2001 by the Investigating Officer, she stated that she had been cooking food on a stove. Her husband was standing at the door and suddenly the stove had burst and due to the aforesaid incident, she caught fire. Her husband and other persons of the village tried to save her from the fire and thereafter they brought her to the Hospital. She further stated that there was no quarrel between she and her husband. Subsequently, Ramkaran, brother of deceased submitted an application before the Superintendent of Police, District Bhind on 7-9-2001. In the aforesaid application, he alleged that his sister was murdered by her in-law's. In his application he mentioned the name of Sukhveer Singh, Yaspal Singh and also applicants Smt. Goli @ Smt. Sharda Devi, and Smt. Sharda Devi, who are sisters of Sukhveer Singh. At the relevant time they had been married with Yashpal Singh and Shivcharan Singh Chouhan. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, the Police registered an F.I.R. and prosecuted six accused persons. In the trial against four persons excluding applicants because they had been shown absconding, which was registered as S.T. No. 26/2002. Complainant Ramkaran, who lodged the F.I.R. became hostile. He stated that at the time of incident he was at Delhi and he received the information on phone. Then he came to his village and thereafter he went to her sister's village Pandari, District Bhind then the villagers told him that in-laws of his sister burnt her. However, he had not received any information about beating of her sister. Rajiv in his statement also denied the incident. Sister of deceased Guddi, Chhoti Bitiya (PW5) in her evidence stated that her sister had been died due to burn injuries. Same facts have been stated by another witness Abhilakh Singh (PW4) and Chandrapal (PW7). Other prosecution witnesses including mother of deceased Guddi, Hansa Devi (PW10) in her evidence stated that she did not receive any information about bad behaviour of her in-law's towards her daughter and her daughter was died at the time of cooking of the food. Same facts have been stated by Beerendra Singh (PW11). Other prosecution witnesses including mother of deceased Guddi, Hansa Devi (PW10) in her evidence stated that she did not receive any information about bad behaviour of her in-law's towards her daughter and her daughter was died at the time of cooking of the food. Same facts have been stated by Beerendra Singh (PW11). On the basis of the aforesaid evidence, the Sessions Court acquitted the four accused persons including husband of the deceased from the offence under section 302/34 of Indian Penal Code. 8. From the evidence of all the witnesses which have deposed in the S.T. No. 26/2002, it is clear that all the witnesses including the mother of the deceased have negativated the story of the prosecution that the deceased was killed or burnt alive. Contrary to this, they have stated that the deceased was died when she had been cooking food. The same version has been stated by deceased herself in her dying declaration. In such circumstances, an inference can be drawn that the applicants have been maliciously prosecuted with an ulterior motive because they are the sister-in-laws of the deceased. 9. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Reshma Bano vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in (2008) 5 SCC 791 relied upon the earlier judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that Court can quash the criminal proceedings under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the following guidelines: 102. (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 collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence 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 on the basis of 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 Act concerned (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 Act concerned, 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 private and personal grudge. 7. A note of caution was indicated in the following words (in Bhajan Lal's case): 103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the Court will 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 and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whim or caprice. 10. Looking to the facts of the case, in my opinion, the case of the applicants falls within the category of (7) as the illustrations given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Bhajan Lal's case (supra). Hence, the criminal trial and proceedings against the applicants are liable to be quashed. 11. Consequently, the application of the applicants is hereby allowed. Looking to the facts of the case, in my opinion, the case of the applicants falls within the category of (7) as the illustrations given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Bhajan Lal's case (supra). Hence, the criminal trial and proceedings against the applicants are liable to be quashed. 11. Consequently, the application of the applicants is hereby allowed. The criminal proceedings against the applicants by F.I.R. dated 7-9-2001 in Crime No. 136/2001 under section 302/34 of Indian Penal Code and the prosecution of the applicants vide S.T. No. 26/2002 is hereby quashed. 12. Accordingly M.Cr.C. is disposed of. No order as to cost. Application allowed