1. Petitioners seek quashment of complaint titled "Narinder Kumar Sharma and another v. Kewal Krishan Sharma and another" under Section 406 RPC and proceedings emanating there from pending disposal before the learned 1st Additional Munsiff, Forest Magistrate, Jammu, in exercise of inherent powers under Section 561-Cr.PC. 2. Background facts are as under; 3. Romika Sharma (deceased) daughter of respondent-complainant was married to Sanjeev Sharma S/o petitioners/accused, on 10th February, 2003 at Jammu. Shri Sanjeev Sharma employed as an engineer in Rainbow Camera E. Pvt. Ltd. Satungal, a business concern at Kathmandu Nepal, took his wife Romika Sharma to Kathmandu, sometime after the marriage was solemnized. Romika Sharma died under suspicious circumstances in Kathmandu on 14th July, 2003. Shri Sanjeev Sharma husband of the deceased in his report lodged at Police Station, Kathmandu stated that the deceased had fallen from roof of the building where the couple was residing, was rushed to Hospital where the Doctors declared her brought dead. The version given by Sanjeev Sharma, however, was disputed by the respondents as also one Devinder Kumar Sharma paternal Uncle of the deceased. The parents and relations of the deceased alleged that Romika Sharma was tortured and harassed by her husband and his parents-present petitioners/accused coerced to fulfil their dowry demands, forced to stay way from her husband, and finally killed by her husband at in-laws. The parents and relations of the deceased complained that the petitioners and their son in particular, asked the deceased to get Maruti Car for her husband and that respondents were compelled to book Maruti Car from Shaurya Motors, Jammu on 01.07.2003 to satisfy the dowry demand made by the petitioners. The respondents and Shri Devinder Kumar Sharma suspected that Romika Sharma had been killed and thereafter, thrown from roof top to give it colour of accidental death. 4. Smt. Anu Sharma — respondent No. 2 herein lodged First Information Report that District Police, Kathmandu on 16th July, 2003 alleging therein that her daughter — Romika Sharma had not met the accidental death but was killed by the petitioners and their son — Sanjeev Sharma. 4. Smt. Anu Sharma — respondent No. 2 herein lodged First Information Report that District Police, Kathmandu on 16th July, 2003 alleging therein that her daughter — Romika Sharma had not met the accidental death but was killed by the petitioners and their son — Sanjeev Sharma. Shri Devinder Kumar Sharma by paternal Uncle of the deceased on his part submitted an application under Section 156(3) Cr.PC to learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu on 18th July, 2003 reiterating the allegation that late Romika Sharma has been subjected to cruelty and harassment by the petitioners and their son Shri Sanjeev Sharma and was killed on July 14,2003, at Kathmandu and prayed for a direction to Police Station to register and question the First Information Report and to investigate the matter. The application was sent by the Chief Judicial Magistrate to SHO Police Station, City and finally a case FIR No. 105 of 2003 under Section 304 (498-A)/120-B RPC was registered at Police Station, Nowabad. Registration of FIR and the investigation was questioned in a petition under Section 561-A registered as No. 35 of 2004 before the High Court. However, relief sought was declined by the High Court and the petition dismissed on 6th June, 2005. The petitioners and Shri Sanjeev Sharma filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court and on 2nd September, 2005, the proceedings in the Trial Court were directed to remain stayed. 5. The Special Leave Petition registered as SLP No. 3995/2005 was disposed of on 09.04.2006 after the Court was informed that the Central Bureau of Investigation entrusted with investigation of the case vide No. 228/18/2004; DSPE dated 21.05.2004 had concluded investigation and presented Charge-sheet alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 306 RPC by present petitioners and Shri Sanjeev Sharma Ld. Sessions Judge on 28.05.2011 dismissed the Charge-sheet. The order dismissing the Charge-sheet was questioned in criminal revision as well as petition under Section 561-A Cr. P.C The criminal revision registered as Cr. Revision No. 52/2011 as also petition under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. were allowed on 10.05.2012 and the trial Court order set aside. The petitioners filed Special Leave Petition (SLA Criminal 18494/2012) before the Supreme Court. However, the order in criminal revision 52/2011 dated 10.05.2012 according to learned Counsel for petitioners, has not been stayed and is in-force. 6. Revision No. 52/2011 as also petition under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. were allowed on 10.05.2012 and the trial Court order set aside. The petitioners filed Special Leave Petition (SLA Criminal 18494/2012) before the Supreme Court. However, the order in criminal revision 52/2011 dated 10.05.2012 according to learned Counsel for petitioners, has not been stayed and is in-force. 6. The parents of the deceased — respondents in the present petition, on 3rd July, 2006, filed a complaint under Section 405/406 RPC against the petitioners. The respondents alleged that at the time of marriage of their daughter late Romika Sharma, they had given dowry, cash and kind to the present petitioners and their son and that cash dowry articles handed over by the respondents to the petitioners as also expensive wearing apparels of late Romika Sharma were misappropriated by the petitioners after the petitioners killed Romika Sharma at Kathmandu, Nepal. It is further alleged that, late Romika Sharma, at the time her departure from Jammu for Nepal to join her husband, handed over all her property including cash to the present petitioners at Jammu with the understanding that she would get back the articles and cash so entrusted, once she returned from Nepal and that the petitioners with the criminal intentions to misappropriate the property so entrusted, have wrongly converted the entrusted property to their own use, misappropriated entrusted property and committed breach of trust. The respondents gave a list of fifty articles and also details of the cash handed over by the respondents and thereafter, their daughter late Romika Sharma to the petitioners. 7. Learned JMIC (Forest Magistrate) recorded the statements of the complainants and on going through the complaint concluded that an offence punishable under Section 406 RFC appeared to have been committed by the accused named in the complaint and present petitioners. Learned Magistrate, accordingly, issued process against the petitioners. 8. The petitioners seek to invoke inherent powers of this Court under Section 561-A Cr.PC to quash the trial Court Order dated 3rd July, 2006, whereby cognizance has been taken and process issued against the petitioners on the grounds that the complaint was outcome of mala fides nursed by the respondents against the petitioners and spill over of the unsuccessful prosecu tion lodged by the respondents against the petitioners first at Kathmandu and thereafter, at Jammu. It is pleaded that the respondents because of untimely and tragic death of their daughter Romika Sharma have become inimical towards the petitioners and the complaint is a part of the campaign undertaken by the respondents to wreck vengeance, oblivious to the fact that Romika Sharma had met an accidental death when she while engaged in a routine physical exercise fell from the roof top. The petitioners seek quashment of the criminal proceedings also on the ground that the articles mentioned in list appended to the complaint, where personal belonging late Romika Sharma, are not be taken as "Istri-dhan" within the meaning of law governing the parties as regards family matters including "Istri-dhan". It is next averred that in any case, the property, if any, given by the respondents to Romika Sharma at the time of her marriage had become a joint property of Romika Sharma and her husband, was meant to be used by all the family members of her husband and that late Romika Sharma did not retain any exclusive control over the articles mentioned in the complaint. The petitioners insist that after the Romika Sharma met the accidental death and left for heavenly abode, the property left by her including her interest in "Istri-dhan" was inherited by her husband as she died issueless and not her parents respondents in the present petition and that the respondents as parents of the deceased did not have a right to lay a claim on the articles or allege their misappropriation. It is further pleaded that interest and rights of late Romika Sharma in the "Istri-dhan", i.e. articles mentioned in the complaint, were extinguished with her death, inasmuch as, such rights were personal in nature and that the respondents had no locus standi or cause of action to allege misappropriation of said property. 9. I have gone through the petition as also the material placed on record. I have heard counsel for the parties. 10. The first and foremost ground urged by the petitioners to seek quashment of the trial Court order dated 03.07.2006 and the proceedings emanating there-from, is that the complaint is outcome of animosity nursed by the respondents against the petitioners because of tragic but accidental death of their daughter. The ground though forcefully urged by the respondents is devoid of any merit. The ground though forcefully urged by the respondents is devoid of any merit. It is admitted case of the parties that Romika Sharma died a few weeks after her marriage. The respondents see her untimely death as outcome of a criminal conspiracy hatched by the petitioners and their son and murder rather than accidental death. The mere fact that the respondents are not ready to accept the version given by the petitioners and their son as regards death of Romika Sharma does not make the complaint alleging misappropriation of property of the deceased and criminal breach of trust, outcome of mala fides. There is no rule of universal application that whenever the parties are entangled in civil or criminal litigation, the complaint filed by either of the parties alleging commission of an offence(s) is necessarily to be taken as tainted with mala fides or aimed to wreck vengeance. The Court, whenever, called upon to deal with such question is to look at the nature of accusation and other attendant circumstances and not to throw out the complaint only because there is some other litigation pending between the parties. 11. In the present case, the complainants allege misappropriation of property and cash of their daughter by the petitioners and gave the details of the property, given by the respondents at the time of marriage to their daughter, carried by her to her marital home and entrusted with the petitioners. The petitioners, while admitting that the articles, jewellery and apparels were brought by deceased to their house, insist that the property on her death passed over to her husband and the respondents do not have any interest in the property so as to maintain the complain alleging misappropriation of such property. The complaint, in the circumstances, cannot be levelled as false, frivolous, motivated by a design to use it as a tool to harass the petitioners and, thus, amount to abuse of process of the Court. 12. The next ground pressed into service by the petitioners to see the complaint and the criminal prosecution, terminated in exercise of inherent powers under Section 561-A Cr.PC, is the competence of the petitioners to maintain a complaint alleging misappropriation of property in which they have no right and which, according, to the petitioners has rightfully passed to their son. 13. The next ground pressed into service by the petitioners to see the complaint and the criminal prosecution, terminated in exercise of inherent powers under Section 561-A Cr.PC, is the competence of the petitioners to maintain a complaint alleging misappropriation of property in which they have no right and which, according, to the petitioners has rightfully passed to their son. 13. The petitioners' case is that their son because of death of his wife inherited the property left by the deceased including the "Istri-dhan" or the articles given by her parents — respondents at the time of her marriage. It is insisted that as the respondents made a gift of the articles mentioned in the complaint to their daughter at the time of her marriage, the articles for all intents and purposes became property of the deceased and her husband and the petitioners did not retain any interest in property after it was gifted to the deceased. 14. The case set up and the arguments advanced might constituted a valid ground to seek quashment of the proceedings, insisting that the averments made in the complaint do not constitute an offence had Romika Sharma died a natural death without any allegation as regards involvement of the respondents and their son in the alleged occurrence. It is to be noted that it has been consistent stand of the respondents that their daughter did not die an accidental death but was killed by the petitioners as she as the respondents did not meet their dowry demands. The investigating agency on investigation has concluded, that the deceased was driven to suicide by the petitioners and their son and the criminal proceedings are pending and yet to be concluded. The question arises whether the husband — accused, alleged to have with his parents either killed or driven his wife to suicide is competent to inherit her property including "Istri-dhan" and, thus, free to convert it to his own use without running the risk or being accused of criminal misappropriation. 15. Section 22 of the Jammu and Kashmir Hindu Succession Act, 1956 disqualifies the "murderer" from inheriting the property of the person murdered. It would be appropriate to reproduce the provision. 15. Section 22 of the Jammu and Kashmir Hindu Succession Act, 1956 disqualifies the "murderer" from inheriting the property of the person murdered. It would be appropriate to reproduce the provision. It reads: "A person who commits murder or abets the commission of murder shall be disqualified from inheriting the property of the person murdered, or any other property in furtherance of the succession to which he or she committed or abetted the commission of the murder." 16. The aforesaid provision reflects the general principle of law that a person cannot be allowed to enjoy the usufructs of his crime and it would be highly unjust and unfair, if a person found to have killed or abetted murder of a person, is held entitled to inherit the property of the person murdered or the person who ends his life due to such abetment. Such inheritance would amount to abetment of the offence as the person committing the crime would be motivated by a desire to do any with the victim and inherit his/her property. The principle is to be extended to include a case where a person abets suicide of another person. In case, a husband abets suicide of his wife is held entitled to inherit her property, such inheritance would be an incentive for the husband to commit the crime and drive his wife to suicide. To illustrate a person, who is able to get precious and valuable articles like jewellery, apparels, electronic gadgets, automobiles etc. in dowry. In order to take over the property, would induce or drive his wife to suicide and, thereafter, lay claim to the property on the ground that it constituted "Istri-dhan" and the property passed over to him after the death of his wife. Such an interpretation of inheritance law would not be only irrational but in gross conflict with the principles of justice and fair-play and, in particular, gender justice and above all the public policy. 17. Section 22 of the Jammu and Kashmir Hindu Succession Act, 1956, though restricted in its scope to case of a "murder" is to be interpreted to include a person, who abets suicide of the person whose property he claims to inherit on his death and declare such person disentitled from inheriting property of a person who on his abetment committed suicide. Section 22, having regard to the mischief sought to addressed, is to be given "purposive" interpretation, so that expected inheritance of the property of the victim does not become a motive for abetting suicide. This apart, it is not necessary that the complainant to maintain a complaint must have interest in subject matter of the property alleged to have been misappropriated. The complaint means an allegation made to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under law and the complainant, therefore, is a person who makes the allegation in the form of a complaint to a Magistrate. The emphasis, thus, is on the allegation that some person, whether known or unknown has committed an offence and that the allegation is made with a view to Magistrate's taking action under the Code. It is not necessary that the complainant must derive any personal benefit from the complaint. His concern primarily must be to set criminal justice system in motion to get the person alleged to have committed offence, trial and dealt with under law. 18. So viewed, the respondents cannot be held to lack competence to file a complaint alleging misappropriation of their daughter's property on the ground that they have no interest or right in said property. The complaint, cannot be held not maintainable and, thus, amounting to abuse of process of the Court on the said ground alone. 19. I am conscious that the petitioners and their son are yet to be held guilty of offence punishable under Section 306 RFC. However, as on date the criminal proceedings against them are pending and still to be concluded. The present complaint and proceedings emanating there from cannot be quashed on the ground that the petitioners though facing trial on the charge of intentionally driving the deceased to suicide are yet to be convicted of the offence of which they are charged. In case such a course is followed, it would be difficult and even impossible for the respondents to prosecute the petitioners, in the event charge is proved against them as in the intervening period the evidence may be lost, or the alleged property made to disappear. In circumstances, the present complaint and the order whereby cognizance has been taken cannot be held to amount to abuse of process of the Court and to be quashed in exercise of inherent powers under Section 561-A Cr.PC. In circumstances, the present complaint and the order whereby cognizance has been taken cannot be held to amount to abuse of process of the Court and to be quashed in exercise of inherent powers under Section 561-A Cr.PC. The trial Court is to proceed with the complaint and the final outcome of the complaint allowed to determine in light of the outcome of criminal proceedings alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 306 RFC by the petitioners and their son — Shri Sanjeev Sharma. 20. For the reasons discussed above, the petition is without any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. Record be sent down.