Satyanarayan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 15866 MP

                            1
 IN    THE     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                     AT INDORE
                         BEFORE
             HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
               ON THE 26 th OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
             MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 37968 of 2022

BETWEEN:-
1.    SATYANARAYAN S/O SHRI RAMESHWAR JI
      RATHORE, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
      AGRICULTURIST MANASA, TEHSIL MANASA,
      DISTRICT NEEMUCH (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.    SHARDABAI W/O SHRI SATYANARAYAN JI
      RATHORE, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
      HOUSEWIFE    MANASA,    TEHSIL   MANASA,
      DISTRICT NEEMUCH (MADHYA PRADESH)

3.    NISHA D/O SHRI SATYANARAYAN JI RATHORE,
      AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDENT
      MANASA, TEHSIL MANASA, DISTRICT NEEMUCH
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

4.    KRISHNAKANT        @   KISHAN  D/O  SHRI
      SATYANARAYAN JI RATHORE, AGED ABOUT 19
      Y E A R S , OCCUPATION: STUDENT MANASA,
      TEHSIL MANASA, DISTRICT NEEMUCH (MADHYA
      PRADESH)

                                                     .....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI ABHISHEK RATHORE, ADVOCATE)

AND
1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION
      HOUSE OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION
      MANASA   DISTRICT NEEMUCH   (MADHYA
      PRADESH)

2.    MUKESH S/O RAMESHWARJI RATHORE, AGED
      ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCCUPATION: ARICULRIST
      SIPAHIMOHALLA,      MANASA,     DISTRICT
      NEEMUCH, P.S. MANASA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                  .....RESPONDENTS
(RESPONDENT NO.1 / STATE BY SHRI AMIT RAWAL, GOVERNMENT
                             2
ADVOCATE)
(RESPONDENT NO.2 BY MS. SONALI GUPTA, ADVOCATE)

      This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
                                   ORDER

01. The applicants / accused have filed the present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashment of First Information Report dated 04.12.2021 registered at Crime No.505/2021, Police Station - Manasa, District - Neemuch and final charge-sheet dated 27.02.2022.

02. As per prosecution story, Police Station - Manasa, District -

Neemuch received an information on 29.10.2021 about an unnatural death. The report was lodged under Section 174 of the Cr.P.C. As per the incident in brief, one Pushkar S/o Kailash Rathore aged about 20 years gave an information near about 7:30 - 8:00 am that his uncle's son Pradeep went to the house of his grandfather, but did not return for sometime. He did not attend the telephone call also. At 8:30 am, Sanjay went to house of grandfather and found the door opened. Inside the room, Pradeep was hanging from the roof. Sanjay immediately called other family members and found that Pradeep had already expired. The information was recorded at UD No.0080/2021. The police went to the house and drew Naksha Panchayatnama in presence of five witnesses. Dead body was sent for postmortem which was conducted by Dr. Sajid Ansari. As per postmortem report, the death took place due to blockage of respiratory passage, ligature leading to asphyxia, within twelve hours. The police found the suicide note, according to which Satyanarayan, Sharda Bai and their son Kaushal threatened to kill his father because of the dispute in respect of agricultural land and whenever he goes to the house of the accused persons to

discuss this issue, his wife used to beat him and threatened him to lodge a report at police station. The police recorded the statements of other family members who made similar allegations against the accused persons.

03. As per the statement of Mukesh Rathore, applicant No.1 - Satyanarayan is his elder brother and they are living separately since last 20 years. He started a dispute since last 2 - 3 years. He kept better agricultural field with him and used to quarrel on the issue of logging of water. He and his family members were perturbed because of the daily dispute, due to which he is living in another house, in which they are residing since last 9 years. His younger son Pradeep was very upset because of this dispute. He was assaulted by Satyanarayan, his wife, son and daughter. He felt very insulted and the matter was reported to the police, therefore, he committed suicide because of this day to day dispute.

04. The police made all the these applicants as accused in this case and filed a charge-sheet. This Court has granted anticipatory bail to all the accused persons.

05. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that even if the entire story is believed to be as it is, it is not a case of Sections 107 & 306 of IPC. Due to day to day dispute amongst the family members, no one commits suicide and it cannot be termed as abatement to commit suicide.

06. Learned Government Advocate for the respondent / State as well as learned counsel for respondent No.2 / complainant oppose the aforesaid prayer by submitting that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide. He was beaten by them. Applicant No.3 used to threaten him for lodging a report on the false charge of molestation, therefore, he was left with no other option except to commit suicide.

07. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.

08. As per the contents of the dying declaration and statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., there was only a dispute between the family of two brothers in respect of agricultural field, distribution of water etc. This minor civil dispute and tension between the member of two families cannot lead to a conclusion that there was any instigation or abatement on the part of one of the family members that a member of other family might commit suicide. The deceased committed suicide on the next day on some petty dispute that too in the house of his grandfather. He was disturbed due to the dispute between the family members.

09. Even if the entire story is accepted to be as its, the offence under Section 306 of the IPC is not made out. The Apex Court in catena of judgments has held that the degree of cruelty to constitute abatement under Section 306 of the IPC would be higher than the degree of harassment and cruelty to constitute any other offence. The mens rea to commit sine qua non to convict the person under Section 306 of the IPC. Under Section 306 of the IPC, there are two ingredients, firstly the suicidal death and secondly abatement thereof. It is not the case that the applicants used to torture the deceased mentally and physically to provoke him to commit suicide. To punish a person under Section 306 of the IPC, there must be mens rea in order to constitute abatement by instigation and there must be a direct inducement to do a culpable act has held by Apex Court in the cases of Sanjy @ Sanjay Singh Sengar v/s The State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2002) 5 SCC 371 & Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v/s The State of Maharashtra & Others reported in

2020 SCC OnLine SC 964.

10. In view of the above discussion, the F.I.R. registered at Crime No.505/2021 dated 04.12.2021 at Police Station - Manasa, District - Neemuch for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC and the final report dated 27.02.2022 are hereby quashed and the applicants are discharged.

11. M.Cr.C. stands allowed.

(VIVEK RUSIA) JUDGE Ravi Digitally signed by RAVI PRAKASH Date: 2023.09.28 12:16:50 +05'30'