Allahabad High Court
Suresh Kumar Agarwal And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 30 May, 2024
Author: Siddharth
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:98735-DB
RESERVED ON 9.5.2024
DELIVERED ON 30.5.2024
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 11304 of 2021
Petitioner :- Suresh Kumar Agarwal And 2 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Dhananjay Singh,Praveen Kumar Singh,Syed Imran Ibrahim,Vimalendra Kumar Upadhyay
Counsel for Respondent :- Adarsh Bhushan,Anurag Kumar Pandey
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Hon'ble Surendra Singh-I,J.
(Delivered by Hon. Siddharath,J.)
1. Heard Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Syed Imran Ibrahim and Sri Praveen Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Adarsh Bhushan and Sri Anurag Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3.
2. This writ petition has been filed with the prayer to quash the First Information Report dated 2.10.2021, registered as Case Crime No. 909 of 2021 under Sections-498-A, 306 IPC, and section ¾ D.P. Act Police Station-Baradari District- Bareilly.
3. There is allegation in the First Information Report that daughter of the informant, Nikita Jindal, was married to Nitesh Jindal son of Suresh Kumar Agarwal, petitioner no.1 on 29.1.2012. Sufficient dowry was given by the informant-respondent no.3 in the marriage of his daughter but the family members of her matrimonial home were not happy and used to taunt and mentally harass her, compliant whereof was made by her to the respondent no.3.Respondent no.3, went to matrimonial home of his daughter and pacified members thereof. In 2014 when they demanded car and beated the daughter of the informant, he had given them a Spark Car which is in possession of Nitesh Jindal till date. Her mother in-law, Santosh Agarwal, petitioner no.2, used to abuse her and taunt her of having dark complexion. All the accused persons gave poison to her in food and after coming to know of the same, informant got her treated at Bareilly. They wanted to get rid of the daughter of informant so that they may marry Nitesh Jindal again to some beautiful girl and they used to instigate her to commit suicide. Since April, 2021 till date Nitesh Jindal, and his family members have taken Rs. 30,000/- per month from the informant. On 26.9.2021 at about 8.30 P.M. Nitesh Jindal, informed the informant-respondent no.3,that dead body of Nikita Jindal is hanging from the fan. When they reached there police had arrived . The informant was unable to understand anything but on 2.10.2021, mother of the deceased showed the informant some letters of Nikita. She had directed her mother not to open them but in those letters she had clearly mentioned that family members of her matrimonial home beat and harass her for dowry and it appears that finding no other way out deceased committed suicide.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that demand of dowry does not appears to have been made after 2014 from the deceased by the accused persons.As per allegation made in the First Information Report, informant had admitted that after he came to know of the suicide by the deceased he could not understand the reasons but after six days he lodged First Information Report.He has submitted that had there been reason of demand of dowry from the deceased, .informant must have been fully aware of the same since he has alleged in the First Information Report earlier deceased was harassed for dowry and he has given car and Rs. 30,000/- per month to the family members of her matrimonial home.. As per First Information Report a diary was given by Nikita to her mother on 14.9.2021, when she committed suicide on 26.9.2021. He has submitted that deceased did not wanted to live in the joint family and was also having affair with another boy. The allegation of her harassment for demand of dowry is unfounded.
5. It has finally been submitted that as per judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Netai Dutta Vs. State of West Bengal, (2005) 2, SCC, 659, Sanju Vs. State of M.P.(2002),5,SCC,371, Amalendu Pal Vs. State of West Bengal (2010) 1,SCC,707, Shabbir Hussain Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021 SCC Online SC 743, Geo Varghese Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2021, SCC. Online SC873, State of West Bengal Vs. Indrajit Kundu and others, (2019) 10 SCC,188, State of Kerala and others Vs. S. Unnikrishnan Nair and others (2015)9 SCC, 639, Madan Mohan Singh Vs. State of Gujrat and another (2010) 8 SCC,628, KAMLAKAR VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA, 2023,SCC ONLine, SC 1458 and Prabhu Vs. State REP. By the Inspector of Police, 2024, SCC, OnLine, SC,137 and Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs. State of Maharashtra and others (2021) 2 SCC,427,no offence under section 306 I.P.C. is made out against the petitioners.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent no.3 has submitted that deceased committed suicide on account of continuous harassment by the petitioners and her husband. She has left behind suicide note and also her personal diary, which proved that she was subjected to torture and harassment by the petitioners and her husband .Hence prayer for quashing of the First Information Report in this case is unfounded. The Apex court in the case of Mahendra K.C. Vs. State of Karnataka and another (2022) 2 SCC, 129,has held that quashing of the proceedings for abetment of suicide without considering evidence led before the trial court is not permissible. Reliance on another judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra Vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) (2009) 16, SCC, has made.
7. After hearing the rival contentions, this court finds that by the order dated 9.12.2021, the prayer of the petitioners for quashing of the impugned First Information Report was turned down by this court. Thereafter, petitioners approached the Apex Court against the same and by the order dated 5.2.2024 Apex Court has directed this court to rehear the matter since the earlier order was passed without perusal of the material on record and merits of the case at all.
8. This court finds that the facts of the case are clearly mentioned in the First Information Report.The only question in this case is whether from the allegations on record ingredients of constituting the offence under section 306/107 I.P.C. are made out against the petitioner or not.
9. This court finds after going through the record that there is a dying declaration and also number of pages of diary of the deceased implicating the petitioners and her husband for unending demand of dowry .She has also made allegation of beating against the accused persons in the aforesaid documents. It is not a case where deceased had committed suicide silently and thereafter allegations of her harassment were made by the informant side that while she was alive, she was subjected to torture for demand of dowry.
10. The judgements relied upon by the counsel for the petitioners need consideration. In the case of Netai Dutta(Supra), it was dispute between the employer and the employees, which led to commission of suicide and in the case of Sanju (Supra), the suicide reflected the disturbed state of mind of the deceased. In the case of Amalendu Pal (Supra), it was found that deceased (wife of the accused) objected to extra- marital relationship of her husband with another women.The accused sought permission from the deceased to marry other women which she refused and hanged herself to death. Hence court held that allegation of abetment of suicide against the accused is not made out. In the case of Shabbir Hussain (Supra), the apex court held that mere harassment and commission of suicide because of the same cannot be considered as abetment of suicide. In the case of Geo Varghese (Supra) the apex court held that after considering the suicide note it found that deceased was hyper sensitive and immature and on being reprimand by teacher she committed suicide. In the case of State of West Bengal (Supra), the Apex court held that a word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation for commission of suicide. This is not such a case.The facts of the case of State of Kerala and others (Supra) Madan Mohan Singh (Supra) KAMLAKAR (Supra) and Prabhu(Supra) and also distinguishable on the facts of this case. In the case of Arnab Manoranjan Goswami (Supra), the apex court found prima facie case only of harassment there was no proof of instigation of deceased by accused to commit suicide.
11. However from the perusal of the suicide note and pages of diary of the deceased, this court finds that in the present case continuous course of conduct of accused persons shows that deceased was left with no other option but to commit suicide. Threatening and other conduct of accused prima facie amount to instigation of deceased to commit suicide,as per the judgement of Apex Court in the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra(supra).
Paragraph-12 of this case, First Information Report cannot be quashed at this stage without sending accused for trial where the evidence on record of this court and before the Apex court, lead by the parties deserves to proved and evaluated. All the judgments cited by the counsel for the petitioners relate mostly to post trial pronouncement except of case Arnab Manoranjan Goswami (Supra).
13. In view of the above, interference with First Information Report is declined.
14. The writ petition is dismissed.
15. Charge sheet has already submitted in this case. Trial court is directed to proceed with trial and conclude the same as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one year from the date of production of certified copy of this order before it.
Order Date :- 30.5.2024
Atul kr. sri.
(Surendra Singh-I, J.) (Siddharth,J.)
