Madhya Pradesh High Court
Abhyuday Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 August, 2024
1
WP No.24647 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAF
ON THE 06th OF AUGUST, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 24647 of 2022
(ABHYUDAY SINGH)
Vs
(STATE OF M.P. & OTHERS)
Appearance:
(BY SHRI ANIL KHARE - SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SHRI ROHIT SOHGAURE
AND ANKIT SAXENA - ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER)
(BY SHRI JITENDRA SHRIVASTAVA - PANEL LAWYER FOR THE STATE AND
SHRI PRASHANT SHRIVAS - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.4.
ORDER
Per: VINAY SARAF.J
1. Petitioner, who is facing criminal trial in S.T. No.546/2022 pending in
the Court of 10th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal arising out of Crime
No.108/2022 registered at Police Station Misrod, District Bhopal for the
offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC, has approached this Court
seeking quashment of entire charge-sheet and subsequent proceeding of S.T.
No.546/2022.
2. With the consent of the parties, arguments are heard for final disposal
of the matter.
3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:
3.1 On 15.02.2022 at about 22.25 PM, F.I.R. bearing Crime No.108/2022
was registered at Police Station Misrod, District Bhopal for the offence
punishable under Section 306 of IPC against the present petitioner alleging
that he abates the commission of suicide by deceased Sudha Shri Soni d/o Shri
Kailash Nath Verma R/o Flat No.304-B, Star, Sagar Real Homes, Misrod,
Bhopal. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that Sudha Shri Soni committed suicide by
hanging herself with the help of her stroll. After registration of F.I.R., on the
basis of statement of witnesses and the evidence collected during
investigation, the Investigating Officer was of the view that petitioner was
friend of deceased and they were having good friendship and he promised to
marry her. However, after the marriage of petitioner, deceased who was
emotionally attached with the petitioner, feeling herself cheated by the
petitioner, committed suicide. According to the Investigating Agency,
petitioner is liable for the path choose by the deceased. Petitioner developed
intimacy and friendship with the deceased, who was under impression that
petitioner will marry her but petitioner solemnized the marriage with someone
else.
3.2 Father of deceased/respondent No.2 Shri Kailash Nath Verma lodged
a written complaint alleging that petitioner tortured his daughter. He further
alleged that petitioner used to call deceased frequently and due to cheating
committed by petitioner, she committed suicide. After completion of
investigation, charge-sheet was filed and trial is pending before 10th
Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal.
3.3 Forensic Medicine and Toxicology Department of AIMS, Bhopal
carried out post mortem of the body and opined that death was due to anti
mortem hang. Door of the room of the deceased was bolted from inside and
Police Personnel of Dial 100 entered into the room after breaking door and it
was found that deceased has committed suicide.
3.4 During investigation, several photographs showing intimacy between
petitioner and deceased were seized and call details were also obtained from
Mobile Service Provider Company. As per call details, petitioner and
deceased were in constant touch and used to call each other even in odd times.
Petitioner is an enrolled Advocate whereas deceased was working in the clinic
of Dr. Neeta Marwaha. Police has also seized the suicide note in which
deceased mentioned that no one is responsible for her drastic action and as per
prosecution, deceased was upset due to marriage of petitioner with another
girl and therefore, she committed suicide.
4. CONTENTION OF PETITIONER:
4.1 Learned senior counsel Shri Anil Khare argued on behalf of petitioner
and submits that deceased has not alleged anything against petitioner in the
suicide note. Though the Police have collected the evidence regarding good
relations and closeness between the deceased and petitioner but the same is
not sufficient for prosecuting the petitioner for the offence punishable under
Section 306 of IPC. He further submits that to utter the ingredients of
abatement the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abate the deceased
to commit suicide is necessary. There is no evidence in respect of alleged
abatement. He further submits that for the purpose of prosecuting a person
under Section 306 of IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the
offence and it also requires that an active act or direct act, which lead the
deceased to commit the suicide seeing no option and this act must have
intended to push the deceased to such a position that she committed suicide,
must be available. But in the present matter, no such evidence is available. He
further submits that if entire material available on record is considered and
accepted as gospel truth and correct, even though no prima facie case is made
out against the petitioner for the alleged offences punishable under Section
306 of IPC and there is no remote proximity and nexus between the suicide
committed by the deceased and the conduct of the petitioner.
4.2 Shri Khare, further pointed out that the ingredients of abatement
defined in Section 107 of IPC are missing in the present case as there is no
evidence to establish even prima facie that petitioner instigated deceased to
commit suicide or he was engaged in a conspiracy or intentionally aided
deceased to commit it. He further submits that a person is said to 'instigate'
another to an Act, when he actively suggests or stimulates him to the act by
any means of language, direct or indirect, whether it takes the form of express
solicitation, or of hints, insinuation or encouragement. The word 'instigate'
means to goad or urge forward or to provoke, incite, urge or encourage to do
an act. He submits that there is no iota of evidence is available in the charge-
sheet to connect the petitioner with the alleged act of the deceased to commit
suicide. He relied on the judgments of Apex Court delivered in the matters of
Kapil Agrawal and Others vs. Sanjay Sharma and Others, (2021) 5 SCC 524,
paras 1, 18, 18.1 & 18.2, State of West Bengal vs. Indrajit Kundu and Others,
(2019) 5 SCC 524, paras 2, 4, 12, 13 &17, Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of
Gujrat and Another, (2010) 8 SCC 628, paras 13, 15, 16 & 18, M. Mohan vs.
State, (2011) 3 SCC 626, paras 43, 44, 45, 67 & 68, Sanju alias Sanjay Singh
Sengar Versus State of M.P., (2002) 5 SCC 371, paras 12, 13 &15,
Gurcharan Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2017) 1 SCC 433, paras 18, 28, and 29,
S. S. Chheena vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and Another, (2010) 12 SCC 190,
para 25, Anil Methaji Gedam vs. State of Maharashtra, 2019 SCC Online
Bom 410, paras 2, 7 & 8 and Sandeep Mishra vs State of Chhattisgarh, 2020
SCC Online Chh 1486, paras 1, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 &27.
4.3 Shri Anil Khare, learned senior counsel prays for quashment of F.I.R.,
charge-sheet and criminal proceedings pending against the present petitioner.
5. CONTENTION OF RESPONDENT/STATE/COMPLAINANT:-
5.1 Learned Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of State and Shri Prashant
Shrivas, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.4/complainant
vehemently opposed the arguments advanced by Shri Khare, learned senior
counsel and submits that during investigation, sufficient material was
collected by the Investigating Officer to establish that petitioner was having
close relations with the deceased and petitioner by words and by his conduct
represented to the deceased that he will marry her and under pretext of
marriage, developed the good relations. Petitioner used to talk her even in odd
times and thereafter started harassing and torturing the deceased when she
raised objection regarding engagement and marriage of the petitioner with
another girl. They further submits that the evidence collected during
investigation are sufficient to prove the conduct and act of petitioner, which
amounts to instigation/abatement and no case for quashment of charge-sheet is
made out.
5.2 Learned counsel for the respondent No.4/complainant also raised
some issues regarding improper and unfair investigation. He submits that
complainant has submitted several representations before the S.H.O., Police
Station Misrod, District Bhopal for fair investigation and also submitted
representation before higher authorities of Police department but proper
investigation was not carried out. He submits that injury marks were found on
the body of deceased but no investigation was carried out to ascertain how the
deceased sustained injuries. He further submits that CCTV recording of
apartment and other nearby cameras were not collected to ascertain who
visited immediately before commission of suicide by deceased. He further
submits that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, no case for
quashment is made out.
5.3 As the present petition is filed by the petitioner who is accused in a
criminal trial, therefore, the petition can be decide only on the basis of
material submitted by the Investigating Agency along with the charge-sheet
and therefore the allegation of unfair investigation is not the subject matter of
present petition filed by an accused.
6. CONSIDERATION AND CONCLUSION:
6.1 Present matter is arising out of a charge-sheet filed by the Police
Misrod against the present petitioner alleging the commission of offence
under Section 306 of IPC.
6.2 Section 306 of IPC reads as under:-
"S. 306. Abetment of suicide.-- 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."
6.3 Section 107 of IPC reads as under:-
"S. 107:- Abetment of a thing - A person abets the doing of a thing,
who:
1. Instigates any person to do that thing; or
2. Engages with one or more other person or persons in any
conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omis-
sion takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to
the doing of that thing; or
3. Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing
of that thing.
Explanations:- 1-A person who, by willful misrepresentation,
or by willful 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, willfully represents to A that C is Z, and thereby inten-
tionally 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.
6.3.1 Supreme Court held in the matter of Parveen Pradhan vs. State of Ut-
taranchal, 2012 (10) JT 478 that 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 been abetted. Abetment may be by instigation,
conspiracy or intentional aid as provided under section 107 of the Indan
Penal Code.
6.4 Section 107 of IPC defines the definition of abatement, which
provides that offence of abatement is a separate and distinct offence. A
person abates the doing of a thing, when he instigates any person to do that
thing or engage with or more other persons in any conspiracy for doing that
thing or intentionally acts, by act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
These things are essential to complete abatement of as a crime. The word
instigates literally means to provoke, incite, urge on are bring about by
persuasion to do anything. This essential ingredient is material for
constituting an act as abatement. There has to be a clear mens rea to commit
the offence and there has to be an active act or direct act having close
proximity with the act of commission of offence, which leads the deceased
to commit seeing no other option. The alleged act beyond any reasonable
doubt must have been intended to push the deceased into such a situation to
commit suicide.
6.5 In the suicide note, on its face value, nothing has been stated against
the petitioner and no allegation is there in the suicide note against any
person. There is nothing in the suicide note by which it can be infer that any
case of abatement of suicide is made out against the petitioner. As neither it
is mentioned that he had any intention to drive the deceased to commit
suicide nor he has done any act of such nature and gravity, which compels
any reasonable person of ordinary prudent to give up their life.
6.6 Supreme Court in the case of Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar
Versus State of M.P., (2002) 5 SCC 371 has held as under:-
"6. Section 107 IPC defines abetment to mean that a person
abets the doing of a thing if he firstly, instigates any person to
do that thing; or secondly, 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,
intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of
that thing.
12. Reverting to the facts of the case, both the courts below have
erroneously accepted the prosecution story that the suicide by
the deceased is the direct result of the quarrel that had taken
place on 25-7-1998 wherein it is alleged that the appellant had
used abusive language and had reportedly told the deceased "to
go and die". For this, courts relied on a statement of Shashi
Bhushan, brother of the deceased, made under Section 161
CrPC when reportedly the deceased, after coming back from the
house of the appellant, told him that the appellant had
humiliated him and abused him with filthy words. The statement
of Shashi Bhushan, recorded under Section 161 CrPC is
annexed as Annexure P-3 to this appeal and going through the
statement, we find that he has not stated that the deceased had
told him that the appellant had asked him "to go and die". Even
if we accept the prosecution story that the appellant did tell the
deceased "to go and die", that itself does not constitute the
ingredient of "instigation". The word "instigate" denotes
incitement or urging to do some drastic or inadvisable action or
to stimulate or incite. Presence of mens rea, therefore, is the
necessary concomitant of instigation. It is common knowledge
that the words uttered in a quarrel or on the spur of the moment
cannot be taken to be uttered with mens rea. It is in a fit of
anger and emotion. Secondly, the alleged abusive words, said to
have been told to the deceased were on 25-7-1998 ensued by a
quarrel. The deceased was found hanging on 27-7-1998.
Assuming that the deceased had taken the abusive language
seriously, he had enough time in between to think over and
reflect and, therefore, it cannot be said that the abusive
language, which had been used by the appellant on 25-7-1998
drove the deceased to commit suicide. Suicide by the deceased
on 27-7-1998 is not proximate to the abusive language uttered
by the appellant on 25-7-1998. The fact that the deceased
committed suicide on 27-7-1998 would itself clearly point out
that it is not the direct result of the quarrel taken place on 25-7-
1998 when it is alleged that the appellant had used the abusive
language and also told the deceased to go and die. This fact had
escaped notice of the courts below."
6.7 Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar vs. State of C.G.,
(2001) 9 SCC 618 considered the scope of Section 306 of IPC and
ingredient, which are essential for abatement as set out in Section 107 of IPC
and held as under:
"20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or en-
courage to do "an act". To satisfy the requirement of instigation
though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that
effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and spe-
cifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable cer-
tainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt
out. The present one is not a case where the accused had by his
acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created
such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other op-
tion except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may
have been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion
without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be
said to be instigation."
6.8 In the matter of Chitresth Kumar Chopra vs. State (Govt. of NCT of
Delhi), (2009) 16 SCC 605, the Supreme Court has discussed the term
(instigation) and has held as under:
"16. Speaking for the three-Judge Bench in Ramesh Kumar
case [(2001) 9 SCC 618 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 1088] , R.C. Lahoti, J.
(as His Lordship then was) said that instigation is to goad, urge
forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do "an act". To satisfy
the requirement of "instigation", though it is not necessary that
actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes "in-
stigation" must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the
consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the conse-
quence must be capable of being spelt out. Where the accused
had, by his acts or omission or by a continued course of con-
duct, created such circumstances that the deceased was left with
no other option except to commit suicide, in which case, an "in-
stigation" may have to be inferred. A word uttered in a fit of
anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually
follow, cannot be said to be instigation.
17. Thus, to constitute "instigation", a person who instigates
another has to provoke, incite, urge or encourage the doing of an
act by the other by "goading" or "urging forward". The dictio-
nary meaning of the word "goad" is "a thing that stimulates
someone into action; provoke to action or reaction" (see Concise
Oxford English Dictionary); "to keep irritating or annoying
somebody until he reacts" (see Oxford Advanced Learner's Dic-
tionary, 7th Edn.)."
6.9 In the matter of Kishorilal vs. State of M.P., (2007) 10 SCC 797, it is
held as under:-
"6. Section 107 IPC defines abetment of a thing. The offence of
abetment is a separate and distinct offence provided in IPC. A
person, abets the doing of a thing when (1) he instigates any per-
son to do that thing; or (2) engages with one or more other per-
sons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing; or (3) inten-
tionally aids, by act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
These things are essential to complete abetment as a crime. The
word "instigate" literally means to provoke, incite, urge on or
bring about by persuasion to do any thing. The abetment may be
by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid, as provided in the
three clauses of Section 107. Section 109 provides that if the act
abetted is committed in consequence of abetment and there is no
provision for the punishment of such abetment, then the offend-
er is to be punished with the punishment provided for the origi-
nal offence. "Abetted" in Section 109 means the specific offence
abetted. Therefore, the offence for the abetment of which a per-
son is charged with the abetment is normally linked with the
proved offence."
6.10 In the matter of S. S. Chheena vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and
Another, (2010) 12 SCC 190, the Supreme Court after considering the
judgment delivered in the matter of State of West Bengal vs. Orilal Jaiswal,
(1994) 1 SCC 73 and Chitresth Kumar vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi),
(2009) 16 SCC 605, held as under:-
"23. In State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal [(1994) 1 SCC 73 : 1994
SCC (Cri) 107] this Court has cautioned that: (SCC p. 90, para
17)
"17. ... The court should be extremely careful in assessing
the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence ad-
duced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty
meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end the life by
committing suicide. If it [appears] to the court that a victim
committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance,
discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the so-
ciety to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord
and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circums-
tanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the con-
science of the court should not be satisfied for basing a finding
that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide
should be found guilty."
24. This Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of
NCT of Delhi) [(2009) 16 SCC 605 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 367]
had an occasion to deal with this aspect of abetment. The Court
dealt with the dictionary meaning of the words "instigation" and
"goading". The Court opined that there should be intention to
provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter.
Each person's suicidability pattern is different from the other.
Each person has his own idea of self-esteem and self-respect.
Therefore, it is impossible to lay down any straitjacket formula
in dealing with such cases. Each case has to be decided on the
basis of its own facts and circumstances.
25. 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 inten-
tion 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 al-
so requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to
commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have been in-
tended to push the deceased into such a position that he commit-
ted suicide."
6.11 In the matter of Amlendu Pal @ Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal,
(2010) 1 SCC 707, the Supreme Court has held as under:-
"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 or-
der 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 borne in mind that in cases of
alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indi-
rect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on
the allegation of harassment without there being any positive ac-
tion proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the ac-
cused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide,
conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable.
13. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306
IPC there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the
said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commis-
sion of suicide must have played an active role by an act of in-
stigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of
suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged
with the said offence must be proved and established by the
prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306
IPC.
14. The expression "abetment" has been defined under Section
107 IPC which we have already extracted above. A person is
said to abet the commission of suicide when a person instigates
any person to do that thing as stated in clause Firstly or to do
anything as stated in clauses Secondly or Thirdly of Section 107
IPC. Section 109 IPC provides that if the act abetted is commit-
ted pursuant to and in consequence of abetment then the offend-
er is to be punished with the punishment provided for the origi-
nal offence. Learned counsel for the respondent State, however,
clearly stated before us that it would be a case where clause
Thirdly of Section 107 IPC only would be attracted. According
to him, a case of abetment of suicide is made out as provided for
under Section 107 IPC.
15. In view of the aforesaid situation and position, we have ex-
amined the provision of clause Thirdly which provides that a
person would be held to have abetted the doing of a thing when
he intentionally does or omits to do anything in order to aid the
commission of that thing. The Act further gives an idea as to
who would be intentionally aiding by any act of doing of that
thing when in Explanation 2 it is provided as follows:
"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."
16. Therefore, the issue that arises for our consideration is
whether any of the aforesaid clauses, namely, Firstly along with
Explanation 1 or more particularly, Thirdly with Explanation 2
to Section 107 is attracted in the facts and circumstances of the
present case so as to bring the present case within the purview of
Section 306 IPC."
6.12 Taking reference from the above judgments delivered by the Supreme
Court, the facts of the present case are considered and it is found that the
allegations which have been made against the petitioner are not sufficient to
make out a case and if the allegations are treated as gospel truth even though
the ingredients of abatement/instigation are not made out. It could not be
point out that how the ingredients of abatement can be inferred in the light of
allegations made against the petitioner. In totality of the evidence, the
evidence against the petitioner is that, he was having good friendly relations
with the deceased and deceased was under impression that petitioner will
marry her. They used to talk in odd hour and they were having close
relations. However, the petitioner solemnized marriage with another girl.
From the above facts, no case for abatement to commit suicide is made out.
The basic constituent of an offence under Section 306 of IPC are missing to
attract the ingredients of abatement and the intention of petitioner to aid or
instigate or abate the deceased to commit suicide.
6.13 Even if the entire allegations are accepted as it is, it cannot be
presumed that there was any instigation on the part of petitioner. In cases of
abatement of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts or
incitement of commission of suicide. Acts involved multifaceted and
complex attribute of human behavior and reactions or in the cases of
abatement, court must look for cogent and convincing proof of acts of
incitement of commission of suicide. If the allegations made against the
petitioner are considered in the light of law laid down by the Supreme Court
as referred hereinabove, this Court is of considered opinion that no case is
made out for prosecuting the petitioner for the charges under Section 306 of
IPC.
6.14 The petitioner preferred the present petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India for quashment of F.I.R, charge-sheet and criminal
proceeding, pending against him. The Supreme Court in the matter of Kapil
Agrawal and Others vs. Sanjay Sharma and Others, (2021) 5 SCC 524
has held that, the F.I.R. and charge-sheet can be quashed in exercise of
powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is further held that
inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226
of the Constitution of India is designed to achieve solitary purpose that
criminal proceedings ought not to be permitted to degenerate in weapon of
harassment and when the court is satisfied that criminal proceedings
amounts to an abuse of process of law or that is amounts to bringing
pressure upon the accused in exercise of inherent powers either under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and/or Article 226 of the Constitution of India, such
proceedings can be quashed. The relevant observations of the Supreme
Court reads as under:-
"18. However, at the same time, if it is found that the subse-
quent FIR is an abuse of process of law and/or the same has
been lodged only to harass the accused, the same can be quashed
in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution or in
exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC. In that case, the
complaint case will proceed further in accordance with the pro-
visions of the CrPC.
18.1. As observed and held by this Court in a catena of deci-
sions, inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC and/or under
Article 226 of the Constitution is designed to achieve salutary
purpose that criminal proceedings ought not to be permitted to
degenerate into weapon of harassment. When the Court is satis-
fied that criminal proceedings amount to an abuse of process of
law or that it amounts to bringing pressure upon the accused, in
exercise of inherent powers, such proceedings can be quashed.
18.2. As held by this Court in Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gu-
jarat [Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641 :
(2018) 1 SCC (Cri) 1] , Section 482 CrPC is prefaced with an
overriding provision. The statute saves the inherent power of the
High Court, as a superior court, to make such orders as are ne-
cessary (i) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court; or (ii)
otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Same are the powers
with the High Court, when it exercises the powers under Article
226 of the Constitution."
6.15 Consequently, the petition is allowed. F.I.R. bearing Crime
No.108/2022 of Police Station Misrod, District Bhopal, charge-sheet and
proceedings of S.T. No.546/2022, pending in the Court of 10th Additional
Sessions Judge, Bhopal, are hereby quashed. The petitioner is discharged
from the alleged offences.
6.16 Copy of this order be forwarded to trial Court and concerned Police
Station for information. Record be consigned to record room.
(VINAY SARAF)
JUDGE
Irf. MOHD IRFAN
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH,
ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH,
2.5.4.20=9e52cc092beccf97fb4519f021aa0efe6554
97f8e69e9c7c35b1dbc4f77fcd7e,
SIDDIQUI
postalCode=482001, st=Madhya Pradesh,
serialNumber=1558F76970FA278F70AC9D72554B9
19645816E40E440A18ED2985A32F759DC97,
cn=MOHD IRFAN SIDDIQUI
Date: 2024.08.13 15:18:07 +05'30'
