Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kavita Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 March, 2021
Author: Vivek Rusia
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT INDORE
M.Cr.C. No.13937 of 2021
(Kavita and another V/s State of M.P.)
Indore, dated :22/03/2021
Shri Surendra Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for
the applicant.
Shri Aditya Garg, learned panel lawyer for the
respondent/State.
The applicant has filed the present petition under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking quashment of F.I.R. at
Crime No.490/2020 by Police Station- Aerodrum,
District- Indore, for the offence punishable under the
section 306 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and
thereafter, the final report has been filed on 25.12.2020
against the applicant.
2. Facts
of the case in short are under:-
i. The marriage of applicant no.1 was solemnized
with deceased Mitesh Yadav S/o Hitendra Singh Yadav
on 07.02.2018. They lived for some period as husband
and wife thereafter, separated w.e.f. 14.06.2018 by
executing a memorandum of understanding. As many as
18 articles were handed over to the present applicant
no.1.
ii. The applicant no.1 approached the JMFC,
Sarangpur by way of application under section 125 of the
Cr.P.C. seeking permanent alimony of Rs.5,00,000/- and
interim maintenance of @Rs.5,000/-p.m. on 20.07.2018.
The case was registered and summons were issued to the
husband-Mitesh Yadav. He received summons on
15.05.2019 and thereafter, he appeared through counsel
and sought time to file reply. On 11.06.2019 Mitesh
consumed poisonous substance and becomes
unconscious. He was immediately taken to the Bhandari
Hospital and Research Center, Indore by his relatives
where he was declared dead at 11:30 a.m. Before death
he disclosed to his brother that he has written a suicide
note and kept in the dickey of the Activa scooter. The
suicide note was recovered by the police from the father
of the deceased Hitendra Singh Yadav. In the said
suicide note he has made allegations against the
applicant no.1 that she is demanding Rs.5,00,000/- and
interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/-p.m. which he is not in
a position to pay. He has made allegations against the
applicant no.2 that he is also pressuring him for payment
of the compensation. Although the Merg was
immediately registered after receipt of the information
about the unnatural death Merg no.24 dated 11.06.2019
but police has registered an FIR on 30.09.2020 after
almost a year against the applicant and recorded
statement of the witnesses. All the witnesses have
alleged that because of the undue pressure by the
applicants Mitesh has committed suicide. After
completing the investigation charge sheet has been filed
hence the present petition before this Court.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that
even if the entire allegation taken to be correct offence
under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is not made
out against the applicants. The applicant no.1 being wife
resorted the remedy available under the law in order to
seek maintenance. Though the memorandum of
understanding was signed between them but divorce has
not been taken place therefore she has a right to claim the
maintenance from her husband which is her statutory
right. Therefore, that cannot be termed as instigation or
abatement to the deceased to commit suicide. Hence the
entire FIR is nothing but misuse of process of law and is
liable to be set aside.
4. Learned panel lawyer for the respondent/State
argued in support of the charge sheet by submitting that
the deceased had written a suicide note in which he
specifically made allegations against the applicant. Since
he could not bear the undue pressure put by the present
applicant for extortion of money from him therefore he
committed suicide. No case for interference under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is made out. Enough material has
been collected by the police to prove the charge against
the applicants.
5. The law in respect of Section 306 of the Cr.P.C. is
well settled. To constitute an offence under section 306
IPC alone the prosecution has to establish beyond
reasonable doubt that the deceased committed suicide
and the accused abetted the suicide. The prosecution has
to show that the accused had provoked, incited or
induced the deceased to commit suicide. In the case of
Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal
(2010) 1 SCC 707 the Apex Court has held that in order
to hold the accused guilty under section 306 IPC the
Court must examine the facts and circumstances of the
case in order to find out whether the cruelty and
harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim
with no order alternative but to put an end to her life.
Para-12 of the said judgment is reproduced below:
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 brone in mind that in cases of alleged
abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or
indirect acts of incitement to the commission of
suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment
without there being any positive action promimate to
the time of occurrence on the part of the accused
which led or compelled the person to commit suicide,
conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not
sustainable.
6. In a recent case of Gurcharan Singh vs. The
State of Punjab (Criminal Appeal No.40/2011) decided
on 01.10.2020 the Apex Court has held that to prove the
offence of abetment, as specified under section 107 IPC,
the state of mind to commit a particular crime must be
visible to determine the culpability. In order to prove
mens rea, there has to be something on record to show
that the accused had a guilty mind and in furtherance of
that state of mind, abetted the suicide of the deceased.
The ingredient of mens rea has to be visible and
conspicuous.
7. The only allegation against the applicant is that
they were demanding maintenance of Rs.5,00,00/- as
permanent alimony and interim maintenance
@Rs.5,000/-p.m. The said right is available under
Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and Section 24 of the Hindu
Marriage Act. She filed an application before the Family
Court in which notices were issued and the deceased
appeared through counsel and sought time to file the
reply and thereafter, he committed suicide. Therefore, by
no stretch of imagination any instigation or abatement is
meted out to the deceased that he may commit the
suicide.
8. With the aforesaid, the FIR is hereby quashed.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Vivek Rusia)
Ajit Judge
Digitally signed by Ajit
Kamalasanan
Date: 2021.03.24 11:21:46 +05'30'
