Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Harsha Gotiya (Sharma) vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 December, 2023
Author: Sanjay Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Dwivedi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI
ON THE 7 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 41498 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
SMT. HARSHA GOTIYA (SHARMA) W/O KRISHNA KANAHIYA @
BABLU SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
HOUSEWIFE VILLAGE GANJ JAMRAY POLICE STATION SALEHA
DISTRICT PANNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI MANISH DATT - SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SHRI KAUSTUBH SINGH -
ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE
STATION SALEHA DISTRICT PANNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. OMKAR SHARMA S/O SHRI SABHAPATI SHARMA R/O
VILAAGE POST GANJ POLICE STATION SALEHA DISTRICT
PANNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI PUNIT SHROTI - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
(MS.KRATIKA INDURAKHYA - ADVOCATE)
Reserved on: 30/10/2023
Pronounced on: 07.12.2023
This petition having been heard and reserved for orders, coming on for
pronouncement this day, the Court pronounced the following:
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C for quashing FIR bearing
no.197/2022 registered at Police Station Saleha District Panna on 10/07/2022 for the
offence registered under Section 306/34 of IPC against the petitioner.
2. The facts of the case in nutshell are that the deceased committed suicide by
hanging himself in his house on 25/06/2022 and FIR to that effect was lodged on
10/07/2022 alleging that deceased has committed suicide on account of the fact that
petitioner and her husband used to harass him. They were also demanding Rs.50,000/-
from him and were threatening to implicate him in an offence of Section 376 of IPC, if he
does not fulfill the demand. Due to continuous harassment the deceased had no option
but to commit suicide. Accordingly, he has committed suicide by leaving a suicide note
alleging against the petitioner and her her husband.
3. As per FIR (Annexure-A-1) on the basis of postmortem report cause of death
assigned was due to hanging. The complainant Prakash Sharma and witness who is
brother of the deceased had disclosed the fact that deceased Vijay Sharma was being
harassed by the present petitioner and her husband as they have lodged false police
complaint against him. It is also contained in FIR that petitioner was demanding
Rs.50,000/-from the deceased and also threatened that if the same is not paid false report
of Section 376 of IPC would be registered against him. He left a suicide note in which it
is mentioned that petitioner her husband are responsible for his death as they threatened
the deceased over mobile either pay Rs.50,000/-or commit suicide. After seizure of said
suicide note police registered the offence against the petitioner and also against her
husband saying that petitioner and her husband had been harassing the deceased and
lodged a false complaint against him and that harassment culminated situation leaving no
option before the deceased but to commit suicide and as such offence of Section 306/34
of IPC has been registered against the petitioner and her husband.
4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the deceased had an evil eye upon the
petitioner and he always tried to outrage her modesty, therefore, she lodged report
against the deceased and offence was registered vide Crime No.189/22 under Section
354, 452, 294, 323, 506 and 34 of IPC.
5 . Shri Datt submits that required ingredients for constituting offence under
Section 306 of IPC are not available and collected by the prosecution against the
petitioner. He submits that suicide note even does not disclose this fact that petitioner
had made a demand of Rs.50,000/-at any time. He has also submitted that suicide note is
not very specific and it reveals that the deceased held present petitioner and her husband
responsible for his death because petitioner over phone threatened him "mar jao nahi to
376". The contents of FIR according to Shri Datt does not constitute an offence of
Section 306 of IPC and there was no material available with the prosecution indicating
any abetment on the part of the petitioner asking deceased to commit suicide.
6. Per contra, counsel for State submits that in view of the suicide note and as
per the statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C, it is clear that petitioner and her
husband both have created an atmosphere before the deceased leaving no room for him
but to commit suicide. He has read over the statement of witnesses recorded by the
police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C especially statement of Omkar @ Lallu Sharma who
in his statement has disclosed the fact that the deceased was blackmailing by the present
petitioner and her husband. The petitioner asked the deceased to pay Rs.50,000/-
otherwise a report of rape would be made against him. The other witnesses have also
supported the statement of Omkar. He submits that there is sufficient material available
on record against the petitioner and her husband for constituting an offence under
Section 306/34 of IPC and at this stage FIR cannot be quashed because sufficient
material is available on record.
7 . Ms.Kratika Indurakhya, counsel appearing for the objector has tried to
establish that it is a case in which the petitioner and her husband had created such
circumstances before the deceased leaving no other option for him but to commit
suicide. He was being harassed by the petitioner since long and she was also demanding
money from deceased and blackmailed him if the amount of Rs.50,000/-was not paid he
would be falsely implicated in an offence of rape. According to her, a false complaint of
Section 354 of IPC was lodged against the deceased by the petitioner and he because of
threat of implicating him in a false offence of Section 376 of IPC committed suicide. She
submits that the deceased not only in the suicide note has held the petitioner and her
husband responsible for his death but also given indication that the petitioner has asked
the deceased to kill himself because if amount is not paid, he would be implicated in the
offence of rape. She submits that deceased had no other alternative under the fear,
frustration and pressure of threat given by the the petitioner but to kill himself. She
submits that admittedly there is no material indicating abetment on the part of the
petitioner but then existing circumstances created an atmosphere leaving no option before
the deceased but to commit suicide. According to her, case under Section 306 of IPC
has rightly been registered against the present petitioner. She relied upon a judgment
reported in 2012(9) SCC 734 (Praveen Pradhan Vs. State of Uttranchal and
another) in which the Supreme Court has refused to interfere in the matter and dismissed
the petition for quashing FIR saying that it is the trial court which may determine the fact
and offence according to Supreme Court under Section 306 of IPC has rightly registered
against the petitioner.
8 . Shri Datt in response has submitted that the deceased had an occasion to
disclose this fact even at the time of lodging report against the present petitioner but in
FIR there was no allegation of demanding money and any threat for implicating falsely
under the offence of Section 376 of IPC. He submits that even in suicide note the
deceased could disclose this fact but the suicide note is also silent in this fact.
9. I have heard the submissions made by counsel for parties and perused the
record.
10. From the contents of FIR, it is clear that deceased committed suicide
because he was being harassed by petitioner and her husband. They have lodged false
report against the deceased and were also demanding Rs.50,000/-. The suicide note of
deceased was also seized in which he has held the petitioner and her husband responsible
for his death. Undoutedly, the allegation of abetment is not there and as per the
submissions made by Shri Datt the ingredient of Section 107 of IPC is not available and
in absence of those ingredients offence of Section 306 of IPC is not made out.
11. I am not convinced with the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner.
If circumstances existing in the case are seen then it is clear that deceased was
harassed by the present petitioner because as per the material available it is alleged that a
false complaint was made against him by the petitioner. Only abating a person asking him
to commit suicide is not enough and is not the only material to constitute an offence of
Section 306 of IPC, but offence is also made out in a circumstance when person is left
no option but to commit suicide. The deceased was not in a position to handle the
situation as has been created before him. He might not have been in a position to fulfill
the demand of the petitioner, therefore, opted the way to get rid of this situation and
committed suicide. The Supreme Court in case of Daksha Ben Vs. State of Gujrat
and others reported in 2022 SCC online SC 936 has observed as under:-
13. In S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan4, cited on behalf
of the Respondent, this Court observed:--
" 2 5 . Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a
person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing.
Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or
aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The
intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided
by this Court is clear that in order to convict a person under
Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the
offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led
the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act
must have been intended to push the deceased into such a
position that he committed suicide."
14. The proposition of law enunciated and/or re-enunciated in
the judgments cited above are well settled. Whether the acts
alleged would constitute an offence, would depend upon the
facts and circumstances of the case. Each case has to be
judged on its own merits.
15. In this case, however, it appears that the High Court did
not even address to itself, the question of whether the
allegations in the FIR constituted an offence under Section 306
IPC or not. The FIR was quashed in view of a settlement
between the accused named in the FIR and the complainant.
16. It is not necessary for this Court to go into the question of
whether there was any direct or indirect act of incitement to
the offence of abetment of suicide, since the High Court has
not gone into that question. Suffice it to mention that even an
indirect act of incitement to the commission of suicide would
constitute the offence of abetment of suicide under Section 306
of the IPC.
12. Furthermore, in case of Praveen Pradhan Vs. State of Uttranchal and
another, reported in 2012 (9) SCC 734 dealing with the provision of Section 306 and
107 of IPC Supreme Court has observed as under:-
1 0 . In the FIR, the complainant, who is the brother of the
deceased, made several allegations against the appellant, all
of which, have also been mirrored in the suicide note left
behind by the deceased, and it is also evident from the FIR
that the deceased had intimated his family members regarding
the ill-treatment and harassment constantly meted out to him,
by the appellant. The deceased was very perturbed and the
same is evident from the suicide note which reads as under:
" I am dying due to Praveen Pradhan. He has done too much
atrocities. He is very cunning man. He always humiliated and
exploited me all the time. He made me demoralised and made
my self-respect hurt too much.
He has hurted Mr O.P. Agaral (KPGI) and Mr C.R.K. Gaur
(Project Consultant). These persons also had to go before time
due to him. He always hurts others feelings as he is a egoistic
and cruel man.
I have been daily hurted my self-respect. He is always
scolding me. I have to die solely due to him.
I have told my feelings to Mr Pavan and Mr Raghu earlier. But
h i s attitude do not change. He always scolded and
demoralised me. Even in front of Amit (Jaymit) he insulted
me. He said Anurag is a 'chutiya' as he is working for him and
he doubted my dignity. I can't tolerate any way to my dignity.
He always forced me to resign. This can be verified from Mr
Minesh Dakwe (who is in Mahindra) that he forced me to
resign. His attitude can be verified from other officers of
factory. He is proving me faulty and incompetent after
completing entire project work successfully."
A plain and simple reading of this suicide note makes it
crystal clear that the appellant had not just humiliated and
insulted the deceased on one occasion. In fact, it is evident
that the appellant perpetually humiliated, exploited and
demoralised the deceased, which hurt his self-respect
tremendously. The words used are, to the effect that the
appellant always hurts the self-respect of the deceased and he
w a s always scolding him. The appellant always made
attempts to force him to resign.
11. The statements recorded by the police under Section 161
CrPC, particularly, one made by Smt Kavita Singh, widow of
the deceased and also those of various other family members,
corroborate the version of events, as given in his suicide note.
Therefore, the question that arises is whether the court would
be justified in quashing the charge-sheet filed against the
accused, in the instant case.
1 6 . This Court in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh
[(2001) 9 SCC 618 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 1088 : AIR 2001 SC
3837] while dealing with a similar situation observed that
what constitutes "instigation" must necessarily and
specifically be suggestive of the consequences. A reasonable
certainty to incite the consequences must be capable of being
spelt out. More so, a continued course of conduct is to create
such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other
option but to commit suicide.
17. The offence of abetment by instigation depends upon the
intention of the person who abets and not upon the act which is
done by the person who has abetted. The abetment may be by
instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid as provided under
Section 107 IPC. However, the words uttered in a fit of anger
or omission without any intention cannot be termed as
instigation. (Vide : State of Punjab v. Iqbal Singh [(1991) 3
SCC 1 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 513 : AIR 1991 SC 1532] , Surender
v. State of Haryana [(2006) 12 SCC 375 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri)
210] , Kishori Lal v. State of M.P. [(2007) 10 SCC 797 :
(2007) 3 SCC (Cri) 701 : AIR 2007 SC 2457] and Sonti
Rama Krishna v. Sonti Shanti Sree [(2009) 1 SCC 554 :
(2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 578] .)
13. Thus, in view of aforesaid, I am of the opinion that it is not appropriate only
in direct evidence of abetment and material collected in this regard offence of Section 306
of IPC will be made. If conduct of accused harassing constantly to the deceased leaving
no option but to commit suicide is available on record then also offence of Section 306
of IPC is made out.
14. At this stage, FIR lodged against the petitioner cannot be quashed because
there are material available and that will be determined after conducting the trial whether
overall circumstance available and created before the deceased leaving no option before
him but to commit suicide.
15. Thus, it is not a case in which it can be considered that there is no material
available with the prosecution for implicating the present petitioner in an offence of
Section 306/34 of IPC, therefore, interference according to this Court is unwarranted as
such petition is without any substance and is hereby dismissed.
(SANJAY DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
sushma
