Rajendra Prasad And Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 3162 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Rajendra Prasad And Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, ... on 5 February, 2024

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Court No. - 27
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 975 of 2024
 

 
Applicant :- Rajendra Prasad And Others
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar Shukla,Skand Bajpai
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
 

1. Heard Sri Skand Bajpai and Sri Abhudaya Mishra, the learned counsels appearing for the applicants and Sri Rishikesh Verma, the learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the record.

2. By means of the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicants have sought quashing of the summoning order dated 21.10.2023 passed by Judicial Magistrate-I, Gonda in Case No.20111 of 2023 as well as charge-sheet No.1 of 2023 dated 08.08.2023 filed in Case Crime No.61 of 2023 under Section 306 IPC, Police Station Mankapur, Gonda.

3. In the FIR lodged on 31.01.2023, opposite party No.2 alleged that her son Durgesh Kumar was having a love affair with opposite party No.6 due to which reason, the applicants used to harass him and incite him to commit suicide. For this reason, son of opposite party No.2 consumed poison on 23.11.2022. He was taken to C.H.C. Mankapur from where he was referred to District Hospital, Gonda and from the District Hospital he was referred to K.G.M.U. where he ultimately died during treatment on 30.11.2022.

4. In the statement of the informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., she stated that her son used to give his earnings and valuables to applicant No.6 but ultimately two to two and a half months prior to the recording of the statement, the family members of applicant No.6 settled her marriage with some other person. Upon coming to know about it, the complainant's son went to applicants' house on 23.11.2022 and demanded return of his money and jewelery but the accused persons declined having money or jewelery of the complainant's son. They asked the complainant's son not to show his face again. Her son came back home at about 12:30 in the noon and fell down on the cot. The complainant believed that he had consumed poison because of harassment by the accused persons.

5. In the charge-sheet dated 08.08.2023, the investigating officer has recorded that the accused persons had asked the complainant's son that in case he was a genuine person, he should not show his face to the applicants and being aggrieved by this, he consumed poison on 23.11.2022.

6. The complainant's son had consumed poison on 23.11.2022 and he remained admitted to different hospitals till he died on 30.11.2022 but the FIR was filed on 30.01.2023 and there is no explanation for the delay in lodging the FIR.

7. Prima facie it appears that there is no material collected during investigation which may establish any incitement made by the accused persons to the deceased for commission of suicide.

8. The learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Mohit Singhal & Anr vs State of Uttarakhand & Ors : (2024) 1 SCC 417, Geo Varghese vs State of Rajasthan & Anr : (2021) 19 SCC 144, and State of West Bengal Vs Indrajit Kundu & Ors : (2019) 10 SCC 188.

9. The matter requires consideration.

10. Issue notice to opposite parties returnable at an early date.

11. Four weeks' time is granted to opposite parties to file counter affidavit. Two weeks' time thereafter shall be available to the applicants to file rejoinder affidavit.

12. List in the week commencing 18.03.2023.

13. Till the next date of listing of the case, proceedings of Case No.20111 of 2023 shall remain stayed.

Order Date :- 5.2.2024/prateek