Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajendra Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 October, 2022
Author: Rajendra Kumar (Verma)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR (VERMA)
ON THE 11th OF OCTOBER, 2022
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 9591 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
RAJENDRA SINGH S/O RAGHUVEERSINGH
SONGIRA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: ATTA CHAKKI KI DUKAN
HEDGEWAR COLONY (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI AKHILESH KUMAR SAXENA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR
THE PETITIONER .
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION
HOUSE OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION
RAJGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(MS. VARSHA THAKUR DY. G.A. APPEARING ON BEHALF OF
ADVOCATE GENERAL.
This application coming on for admission this day, with the consent
heard finally and the court passed the following:
ORDER
Present petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner under section
482 of Cr.P.C. for quashment of the FIR bearing Crime No.600/2021 registered
at Police Station Rajgarh, District Rajgarh alongwith all subsequent proceedings
pending against the petitioner under Section 306 and 498-A of IPC.
According to the prosecution story, the police received an information
regarding death of the deceased and thereafter, the police has taken the Merg
Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by
Statements of relatives of the deceased. On the information of brother of the
SAN AMIT KUMAR
Date: 2022.10.14
18:18:41 IST
deceased Manju, they reached at the matrimonial home of the deceased and
seen that the deceased was lying in the house and there were some marks on her
neck. On being interrogation, the in-laws of the deceased had stated that the
deceased will feeling ill and they taken her to the hospital at Rajgarh and
thereafter for Bhopal, but on the way, she died. Hence, the police has registered
the FIR, the petitioner was implicated in the present case.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent
a n d has implicated falsely in the present case. The petitioner has been
implicated only on the ground that he has harassed the deceased, there is no
direct or indirect evidence to connect the petitioner with the case in the given
facts and circumstances of case and the material available on record. It is also
submitted that the petitioner was implicated only on the basis Merg statements
of the relatives of deceased. There is nothing on record against the applicant
except the omnibus allegations leveled by the relatives of the deceased. It is
further submitted that neither in merg statements nor in the case diary
statements, no one has stated anything regarding abetment to commit suicide
against the petitioner. It is further submitted that is no parameters of 'abetment'
which has been stated in Section 107 of IPC. Counsel for the petitioner placed
reliance in judgment of Chitresh Kumar Chopra vs. State of (Govt. of NCT
of Delhi) reported in 2009 (16) SCC 605 where the person can be said to
have abetted in doing a thing if he, firstly, instigates any person to do that thing;
or secondly, engaged with one or more other person or persons in any
conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if any 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.
Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by
SAN AMIT KUMAR
Date: 2022.10.14
18:18:41 IST
There is no ingredients of Section 306 of IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further placed reliance over the
judgments passed by apex Court in the case of S.S. Chena vs. Vijay Kumar
Mahajan & Another reported in 2010 (12) SCC 190, Gangula Mohan
Reddy vs. State of A.P. reported in (2010) 1 SCC 750.
In the case of Rajesh vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh passed in
CRR No.3155/2011 decided on 09.07.2019, this Court has observed in para
no.13, as under:-
13.............. "For framing charges under Section 306 of
IPC there has to be a mens rea to impel or incite the
subject to commit suicide. It is also requires an active or
direct act, which lead the deceased to commit suicide and
this act mush push the deceased into such a position that
he sees no option except to annihilate his own life."
Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer by submitting that
the petitioner has harassed the deceased due to which she has committed
suicide. In their statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., relatives i.e.
mother of the deceased Anoop Kunwar, Surendher Singh (brother) Laxman
Singh uncle of the deceased have leveled specific allegations against the
petitioner that he has harassed the the deceased due to which, she has
committed suicide. Hence, the learned Court below has rightly framed the
charges against the petitioner.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
From the face of record, it is clear that prior to the incident there are
dispute between the petitioner/husband and the deceased/wife. It i also clear
from the statements of the witnesses that the petitioner always used to commit
cruelty on the deceased after having liquor. The cruelty so caused by the
petitioner is well corroborated by the statements of the witnesses, hence, prima
Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by
SAN AMIT KUMAR
Date: 2022.10.14
18:18:41 IST
facie, there is allegations against the petitioner and such allegations would only
decide after proper trial only. Therefore, at this stage, it can not be said that
there is no instigation or abatment to commit suicide. Resultantly, the MCRC
stands dismissed.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR (VERMA))
JUDGE
amit
Signature Not Verified
VerifiedDigitally
Digitally signed by
SAN AMIT KUMAR
Date: 2022.10.14
18:18:41 IST
