Madhya Pradesh High Court
Priti vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 January, 2022
Author: Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava
1 MCRC-50057-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJEEV KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA
ON THE 31st OF JANUARY, 2022
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 50057 of 2021
Between:-
1. PRITI W/O SHRI CHETANYA RAJPUT , AGED
ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSE WIFE
D.D. NAGAR MAHARAJPURA GWALIOR AT
PRE. GRAM JIKKSOLI POST MOTIJHEEL P.S
PURANI CHAWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. PARMAL SINGH S/O SHRI GAMBHIR SINGH ,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, GRAM JIKSOLI, POST
MOTHIJHEEL, PS PURANI CHHAWANI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. PRAMOD @ CHINTU S/O SHRI PARMAR
SINGH , AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, GRAM
JIKSOLI, POST MOTHIJHEEL, PS PURANI
CHHAWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. MANISH S/O PARMAL SINGH , AGED ABOUT
25 YEARS, GRAM JIKSOLI, POST
MOTHIJHEEL, PS PURANI CHHAWANI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI MAHAVEER PATHAK, ADVOCATE FOR THE
PETITIONERS )
VS
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
INCHARGE POLICE STATION BAHODAPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI A.P.S. TOMAR, PANEL LAWYER FOR
THE RESPONDENT NO.1/STATE
2. CHETAN SING RAJPOOT S/O LATE SHRI
RAJENDRA RAJPOOT , AGED ABOUT 36
YEAR S, HN 107 VINAY NAGAR, SECTOR 4,
INSPRING VELI SCHOOL KE SAMNE,
GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI D.R. SHARMA, ADVOCATE FOR THE
COMPLAINANT/RESPONDENT NO.2)
(Heard through Video Conferencing)
This petition coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
2 MCRC-50057-2021
This petition under Section 482 of CrPC has been preferred by the
petitioners invoking the inherent powers of the court, for quashing the FIR
dated 19.03.2021 (Annexure P/1) registered at Crime No.235/2021 by Police
Station Bahodapur, District Gwalior, alleging offences punishable u/S. 306
read with Section 34 of IPC, along with consequential proceedings.
2. As per the prosecution case, a merg report no. 22/2021 under Section
174 of Cr.P.C. was recorded at Police Station Bahodapur, District Gwalior
regarding the death of the deceased Rajendra Singh who has committed
suicide by leaving a suicide note stating therein that due to instigation of his
daughter-in-law Smt. Preeti, her father Parmal Singh and brother Pramod @
Chintu and Manish, he committed suicide, by which offence under Section
306, 34 IPC has been registered. Matter was investigated and the statements
of the witnesses were recorded. During the investigation, it was found that
Chetan Singh (respondent No.2) s/o Rajendra Singh (deceased) in his
deposition before the Police Station stated that on 2.3.2021 at about 8.30 to
9.00 AM a phone call was received in his mobile from his uncle's son stating
that the deceased has committed suicide by means of firearm of 12 bore gun
by ownself and the dead body of the deceased was lying on the bed, on the
basis of which the aforesaid FIR has been lodged. On getting information,
Crime No. 235/2021 for the offence under Section 306 read with 34 of IPC
was registered.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioner
No.1 is the daughter-in-law of the deceased and she has not committed any
offence. There is no any ingredient of Section 107 of IPC. Rather, initially
merg was recorded and thereafter, the case under Section 306 read with
Section 34 of IPC was registered. It is further submitted that the petitioner
No.1 has lodged a complaint before the Mahila Apradh Prakosth Prabhari,
District Shivpuri regarding demand of dowry and cruelty done with the
petitioner no.1. Thereafter, the deceased who is the father-in-law of petitioner
No.1 has committed suicide. As there is no ingredient of Section 107 of IPC,
therefore, no case is made out against the present petitioners. It is further
submitted that on 27.01.2021 the petitioner no.1 has filed an application under
Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court Gwalior which is
pending for consideration. The allegation levelled against the petitioners in
regard to harassment and cruelty for demand of dowry is false. It is further
3 MCRC-50057-2021
alleged that due to registration of offence against the family members of the
deceased, the father-in-law of the petitioner No.1 has committed suicide. No
case is made out against the petitioners for instigation to commit suicide by
the deceased. Hence, it is prayed that this petition deserves to be allowed and
the FIR bearing Crime No.235/2021 registered at Police Station Bahodapur,
District Gwalior for offence under Section 306, 34 of IPC deserves to be
quashed by allowing this petition.
4. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners has
relied upon the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases
of M. Arjunan vs. State, 2019 (1) Cr.L.J.953, Sanju @ Sanjay Singh
Sengar vs. State of M.P., 2002 SCC (Cri) 1141 and Radha vs. State of
M.P. ILR (2008) M.P. 3333.
5. On the other hand, the counsel for the State as well as counsel for the
complainant have vehemently opposed the same and submitted that the
deceased had left behind a suicide note wherein it is specifically mentioned
that on account of instigation made by the present petitioners along with her
family members, the deceased was compelled to commit suicide. There is
sufficient evidence available against the petitioners. The suicide note itself
reflects all the ingredients of Section 107 of IPC. At present, only an FIR has
been registered and investigation is going on, therefore, considering the nature
of offence, the petitioners are liable to be convicted under Section 306, 34 of
IPC for committing the offence of instigation. Hence, prayed for dismissal of
the petition.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties through VC and perused the
record available.
7. It is undisputed fact that right now, the investigation is going on. The
petitioner No.1 is the daughter-in-law of the deceased, petitioner No.2 Parmal
Singh is father of the petitioner No.1 Preeti and Pramod @ Chintu and
Manish are the brothers. One suicide note has been received by the police
wherein the names of the petitioners are reflected and it is specifically
mentioned in the suicide note that the deceased has committed suicide on
account of instigation made by the petitioners.
8. Section 306 of I.P.C. reads as under :
4 MCRC-50057-2021
"306. Abetment of suicide.Â"If any person commits suicide,
whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.''
9."ÂœAbetment" is defined under Section 107 of IPC which reads as under :-
"œ107.Abetment of a thing.-A person abets the doing of a
thing, who-
First-Â"Instigates any person to do that thing; or
Secondly.-Â"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.-Â"Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the
doing of that thing.
Explanation 1-Â"A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by
wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to
disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or
procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that
thing.
Illustration
A, a public officer, is authorized by a warrant from a Court of
Justice to apprehend Z. B, knowing that fact and also that C is not
Z, wilfully represents to A that C is Z, and thereby intentionally
causes A to apprehend C. Here B abets by instigation the
apprehension of C.
Explanation 2.-Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of
an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and
thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act."
10. Before considering the submissions made by the parties, it would be
appropriate to consider the scope of powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
regarding quashment of FIR.
11. In the matter of State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Shri Pirthi
Chand, reported in AIR 1996 SC 977 the Supreme Court has observed as
under:-
"great care should be taken by the High Court before embarking to
scrutinize the FIR/charge-sheet/ complaint. In deciding whether the case
is rarest of rare cases to scuttle the prosecution in its inception, it first
has to get into the grip of the matter whether the allegations constitute
the offence. It must be remembered that FIR is only an initiation to move
the machinery and to investigate into cognizable offence. After the
investigation is conducted and the charge-sheet is laid the prosecution
produces the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of
the Code in support of the charge-sheet. At that stage it is not the
function of the Court to weigh the pros and cons of the prosecution case
or to consider necessity of strict compliance of the provisions, which are
considered mandatory, and its effect of non-compliance. The Court has
to prima facie consider from the averments in the charge-sheet and the
statements of witnesses on the record in support thereof whether Court
5 MCRC-50057-2021
could take cognizance of the offence on that evidence and proceed
further with the trial. If it reaches a conclusion that no cognizable
offence is made out no further act could be done except to quash the
charge sheet. It is observed "when the remedy under Section 482 is
available, the High Court would be loath and circumspect to exercise its
extraordinary power under Article 226 since efficacious remedy under
Section 482 of the Code i s available. When the Court exercises its
inherent power under Section 482 the prime consideration should only
be whether the exercise of the power would advance the cause of Justice
or it would be an abuse of the process of the Court. When Investigating
Officer spends considerable time to collect the evidence and places the
charge-sheet before the Court, further action should not be short-
circuited by resorting to exercise the inherent power to quash the charge-
sheet."
12. Further, in the matter of Medchal Chemicals and Pharma (P)
Ltd. Vs. Biological E. Ltd., reported in 2000 SCC (Cr) 615 the Supreme
Court reversed the decision of High Court quashing the complaint and set
aside the impugned order, has observed as under:-
"Exercise of jurisdiction under the inherent power as envisaged in
Section 482 of the Code to have the complaint or the charge-sheet
quashed is an exception rather than a rule and the case for
quashing at the initial stage must have to be treated as rarest of
rare so as not to scuttle the prosecution. With the lodgment of First
Information Report the bail is set to roll and thenceforth the law
takes its own course and the investigation ensues in accordance
with the provisions of law. The jurisdiction as such is rather limited
and restricted and its undue expansion is neither practicable nor
warranted. In the event, however, the Court on a perusal of the
complaint comes to a conclusion that the allegations levelled in the
complaint or charge-sheet on the face of it does not constitute or
disclose any offence as alleged, there ought not to be any
hesitation to rise up to the expectation of the people and deal with
the situation as is required under the law. Frustrated litigants ought
not to be indulged to give vent to their vindictiveness through a
legal process and such an investigation ought not to be allowed to
be continued since the same is opposed to the concept of justice,
which is paramount."
It is further observed by the Supreme Court that:
"In a proceeding under Section 482 of the Code, the complaint in
its entirety shall have to be examined on the basis of the allegations
made in the complaint and the High Court at that stage has no
authority or jurisdiction to go into the matter or examine its
correctness." Whatever appears on the face of the complaint shall
be taken into consideration without any critical examination of the
same."
It is further observed that:
"Be it noted that tin the matter of exercise of the High Court's
inherent power, the only requirement is to see whether
continuance of the proceeding would be a total abuse of the
process of Court. The Criminal Procedure Code contains a
detailed procedure for investigation, charge and trial, and in the
event, the High Court is desirous of putting a stop to the known
procedure of law, the care and caution to quash the complaint in
exercise of its inherent jurisdiction."
13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in "G Sagar Suri & Another vs.
State of UP & Others", AIR 2000 SC 754 , where the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, inter alia, observed:
6 MCRC-50057-2021
"Jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code has to be exercised with a
great care. In exercise of its jurisdiction High Court is not to examine
the matter superficially. It is to be seen if a matter, which is essentially
of civil nature, has been given a cloak of criminal offence. Criminal
proceedings are not a short cut of other remedies available in law.
Before issuing process a criminal Court has to exercise a great deal of
caution. For the accused it is a serious matter. This Court has laid
certain principles on the basis of which High Court is to exercise its
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. Jurisdiction under this
Section has to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any Court
or otherwise to secure the ends of justice."
1 4 . Similarly, in the matter of Hasan Ali Khan vs. State of AP,
reported in 1992 CrLJ 1828 , the Andhra High Court has held as under:-
''The powers of police under the Code of Criminal Procedure to
investigate a cognizable offence are wide and unfettered; but the
condition precedent for taking up investigation is that the police must
have reason to suspect commission of a cognizable offence whether on
information or otherwise and that can only be when F.I.R. and other
material disclose cognizable offence. The learned Judge further held that
where the F.I.R. and other material including the charge-sheet do not
disclose any offence, or the proceedings are initiated mala fide or
amount to abuse of the process of Court the criminal proceedings can be
quashed by the High Court under inherent power under Section 482
CrPC which can be invoked only after initiation of criminal proceedings
by filing a charge-sheet but not at the investigation stage. It is further
held that where the investigation is taken up by the police on the basis of
the F.I.R. and other material which do not disclose any cognizable
offence, or mala fide, or in colourable exercise of power any person
aggrieved can invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article
226 of the Constitution to quash the F.I.R. and the investigation for in
these situations there exists no power of investigation in the police.
15. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M.N. Ojha v. Alok Kumar
Srivastav reported in (2009) 9 SCC 682 has held as under :
30. Interference by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can only be where a
clear case for such interference is made out. Frequent and uncalled
for interference even at the preliminary stage by the High Court may
result in causing obstruction in progress of the inquiry in a criminal
case which may not be in the public interest. But at the same time the
High Court cannot refuse to exercise its jurisdiction if the interest of
justice so required where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint
are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no fair
minded and informed observer can ever reach a just and proper
conclusion as to the existence of sufficient grounds for proceeding. In
such cases refusal to exercise the jurisdiction may equally result in
injustice more particularly in cases where the complainant sets the
criminal law in motion with a view to exert pressure and harass the
persons arrayed as accused in the complaint.
31. It is well-settled and needs no restatement that the saving of
inherent power of the High Court in criminal matters is intended
to achieve a salutary public purpose Âœwhich is that a court
proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a
weapon of harassment or persecution. [If such power is not
conceded, it may even lead to injustice.]
(See State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy, SCC p. 703, para
7.)
7 MCRC-50057-2021
32. We are conscious that œinherent powers do not confer an
arbitrary jurisdiction on the High Court to act according to whim or
caprice. That statutory power has to be exercised sparingly, with
circumspection and in the rarest of rare casesÂÂ. (See Kurukshetra
University v. State of Haryana, SCC p. 451, para 2.)
16. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case as
well as the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as above, the impugned
F.I.R. this Court is of the considered opinion that the allegations made against
the petitioners prima facie make out an offence warranting their prosecution
for offence under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC. Under these
circumstances, the impugned FIR as well as other subsequent criminal
proceedings cannot be quashed.
17. Before parting with this order, this Court would like to mention here
that the facts of the present case have been considered for the limited
purposes as to whether FIR as well as other subsequent criminal proceedings
can be quashed or not. Therefore, this petition sans merits and is hereby
dismissed.
(RAJEEV KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA)
JUDGE
Van
VANDANA VERMA
2022.02.02
12:06:15 -08'00'
