Allahabad High Court
Virpal Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 15 October, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:184697
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22636 of 2018
Virpal Singh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Ajay Sengar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
Dinesh Kumar Singh, G.A., Snehil Srivastava
Court No. - 85
HON'BLE JAI PRAKASH TIWARI, J.
1. Heard Shri Ajay Sengar, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. representing the State as well as Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh and perused the record.
2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant praying for quashing of the charge-sheet dated 23.12.2017 as well as the entire consequential proceedings arising out of Case Crime No. 612 of 2016 (State of UP v. Vir Pal & Anr.), under Sections 306 & 323 I.P.C., Police Station- Kalpi, District- Jalaun, pending in the court of learned Sessions Judge, Jalaun at Orai.
3. The brief facts of the case is that on 24.10.2016, a First Information Report was lodged by the informant- Jagat Singh informing that the wife of his brother namely, Manda Devi, who was beaten by her husband- Anand Swaroop, has committed suicide in the field of the applicant- Virpal Singh by hanging a Babool tree. Thereafter, the dead body was sent for post mortem. After proper investigation, charge-sheet was submitted on 23.12.2017. The Investigating Officer has prepared Panchayatnama, inquest report and site-plan of the occurrence of offence. The I.O. of this case has recorded the statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the allegations levelled against the applicant are totally false and no prima facie case is made out against him. The applicant has not abeted the deceased to commit suicide. He has no motive to commit such kind of offence. It is further submitted that by being beaten up by her husband, the deceased has committed suicide in the field of the applicant by hanging a Babool tree. In the post mortem report, the cause of death was given 'ante mortem hanging'. It is further submitted that he was falsely implicated in the present case just to pressurize and harass the applicant, in fact, no such incident has taken place. The applicant has never committed any offence as alleged against him. Further submission is that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the court below has utterly failed to consider as no prima facie case is made out against the applicant. The counsel for the applicant also pointed out certain documents in support of his contention. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon some judgements which is given below :-
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat & Anr.., 2011 AIR (SC) (Cri.) 806, has held as under :-
"9. ...In the prosecution under Section 306 IPC, much more material is required. The Courts have to be extremely careful as the main person is not available for cross- examination by the appellant/accused. Unless, therefore, there is specific allegation and material of definite nature (not imaginary or inferential one), it would be hazardous to ask the appellant/accused to face the trial. A criminal trial is not exactly a pleasant experience. The person like the appellant in present case who is serving in a responsible post would certainly suffer great prejudice, were he to face prosecution on absurd allegations of irrelevant nature. In the similar circumstances, as reported in Netai Dutta v. State of W.B., 2005(1) Apex Criminal 535 : 2005 (2) SCC 659, this Court had quashed the proceedings initiated against the accused."
Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ayyub and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr., 2025 All SCR (Crl) 449, has held as under :-
"19. By a long line of judgments, this Court has reiterated that in order to make out an offence under Section 306 Indian Penal Code, specific abetment as contemplated by Section 107 Indian Penal Code on the part of the accused with an intention to bring about the suicide of the person concerned as a result of that abetment is required. It has been further held that the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a must for attracting Section 306 Indian Penal Code [See Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat and Anr., (2010) 8 SCC 628]. Further, the alleged harassment meted out should have left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life and that in cases of abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to commit suicide [See Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu v. State of West Bengal, (2010) 1 SCC 707 and M. Mohan v. State, (2011) 3 SCC 626 and Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618]."
Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2002 AIR (SC) 1998, has held as under :-
"7. Section 107 I.P.C. defines abetment to mean that a person abets the doing of a thing if he firstly, instigates any person to do that thing; or secondly, engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or thirdly, intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing."
Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prabhu v. The State and Anr., Law Finder Doc ID # 2580911, has held as under :-
"12. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that before holding an accused guilty of an offence under section 306 IPC, the court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. It is also to be borne in mind that in case of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to that time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide conviction in terms of section 306 I PC is not sustainable."
5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 have vehemently opposed the application and contended that the applicant has illicit relations with the deceased and due to that reason, many times his wife- Sarojani Devi has objected for the same and prior to this incident, on 23.10.2016, the applicant and his wife committed Maarpeet with the deceased and abeted her to commit suicide. No solid evidence has been found against the husband of the deceased. Post mortem report reveals that there were six injuries on the body of the deceased and major injury is ligature mark around the neck. The statement of independent witness namely, Rajendra Singh clearly shows that the applicant and other co-accused persons were hanging the deceased by a Babool tree. The Jeth of the deceased/ informant has also admitted the factum of illicit relations of the applicant with the deceased and the informant, in his statement, stated that the applicant and his wife along with other co-accused persons have killed the deceased. It is further submitted that no interference is required by this Court in the impugned proceedings.
6. From the perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant. All the submissions made at the bar relates to the disputed question of facts, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage, only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court.
7. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 has laid down the guidelines under which circumstances the Court should, in its inherent power, entertain an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The guidelines are as follows:-
"(i) 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.
(ii) 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.
(iii) 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.
(iv) 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.
(v) 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.
(vi) 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.
(vii) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides 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."
8. Further the Honb'le Supreme Court in the cases of M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918, R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192, and lastly, Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 has held that only those cases in which no prima facie case is made out can be considered in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.
9. The instant application does not fall under the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgements mentioned above and followed in a number of matters. Moreover, the facts as alleged cannot be said that, prima facie, no offence is made out against the accused. It is only after the evidence and trial, it can be seen as to whether the offence, as alleged, has been committed or not.
10. Hence, the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be entertained and is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Jai Prakash Tiwari,J.)
October 15, 2025
Rama Kant
