Madhya Pradesh High Court
Satish Sahu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 February, 2024
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 9 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 5736 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
SATISH SAHU S/O SHRI ROOP NARAYAN SAHU, AGED
ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS R/O H.NO.
9/9 ASHOK NAGAR UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI YOGENDRA SINGH JATWA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION
HOUSE OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION
NANAKHEDA THANA DISTT. UJJAIN (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. CHAGANLAL YADAV S/O RAM CHANDRA YADAV,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, 80, SHANTI NAGAR
POLICE STATION NANAKHEDA DIST. UJJAIN
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY MRS. VINITA DWIVEDI - PANEL LAWYER)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
Heard.
This petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C has been filed for
quashment of FIR No.645/2022, registered at Police Station Nanakheda,
District Ujjain for the offence punishable under Section 306/34 of the IPC and
all subsequent proceedings.
2 . As per the prosecution, on 05.09.2022, deceased Amar Yadav
committed suicide by consuming a poisonous substance. On his death merg
was registered and investigation was commenced during the course of which
statements of various witnesses were recorded from which it transpired that the
deceased had taken certain sums on loan from different persons including the
present petitioner, who had been exercising pressure upon him for return of the
same. He used to call him and also used to visit his house demanding
repayment of his amount. The deceased did not narrate about the incident to
anyone but used to remain harassed on account of the acts of the accused.
Eventually due to the harassment having been meted out to him by the accused
including the present petitioner, the deceased committed suicide. On recording
of the statements, FIR has been registered against the accused including the
petitioner for the aforesaid offences and upon completion of the investigation,
charge-sheet has been filed before the Court concerned.
3 . Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is
innocent and has falsely been implicated in the case. The entire allegations as
leveled against the petitioner even if taken to be true at his face value do not
amount to an offence punishable under Section 306/34 of the IPC. There are no
allegations against the petitioner of instigating or abetting the deceased in any
manner to commit suicide and it cannot be said that due to act of the petitioner,
the deceased had no other option but to commit suicide. He had various other
legal remedies available to him. The act alleged against the petitioner is only to
the effect that he was demanding repayment from the deceased of the amount
which had been lent by him to him. The same cannot in any manner be said to
be abetment or instigation or even a remote cause for the deceased to commit
suicide. It is hence submitted that the FIR registered against the petitioner be
quashed.
4 . Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State has submitted
that there is sufficient material available on record to proceed against the
petitioner and it cannot be said that no offence whatsoever is made out in view
of which the petition deserves to be dismissed.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have perused
the record.
6. Section 107 of the IPC makes it obligatory for the prosecution to
show and establish the elements of instigation. The Apex Court in the case of
Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Senger V/s. State of M.P. , AIR 2002 SC 1998 has
opined as under :-
"13. ... Even if we accept the prosecution story that the appellant
did tell the deceased "to go and die", that itself does not constitute
t h e 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."
7. In the case of Sanju @ Sanjay (supra) the accused allegedly told the
deceased "to go and die". Yet Apex Court opined that it does not constitute the
ingredient of "instigation". In the instant case if story of the prosecution is read
and believed as such it would be clear that the petitioner did not in any manner
instigate the deceased to commit suicide. There is no element of "incitement" or
"instigation" on his behalf. Thus Section 306 of the IPC is not attracted against
the petitioner.
8. The ancillary question is whether his acts fall within the ambit of
Section 306 of the IPC. In Gangula Mohan Reddi V/s. State of Andhra
Pradesh 2010 (1) SCC 750 the Apex Court opined as under :-
"17. 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 this act must have been intended to push the deceased
into such a position that he committed suicide."
9. The principle flowing from this judgment is that the overt act of
accused person must be of a nature where the victim had no option but to
commit suicide. Even assuming that the petitioner was demanding repayment
from the deceased of the amount which had been lent by him to him, this does
not fall within the ambit of "incitement" or "instigation".
10. This Court in Hukum Singh Yadav V/s. State of M.P. reported in
ILR (2011) MP 1089 considered the judgment of Supreme Court in Sanju @
Sanjay Singh Senger and held as under :-
"10. Considering these legal aspect this is to be observed that
whether applicants have had same knowledge that deceased would
commit suicide. As per the prosecution case when deceased was
going with his father. Applicants restrained deceased and his
father Jagdish and abused and threatened both of them, hence it
cannot be assumed that applicants had knowledge that one of them
particularly deceased will commit suicide. When act of abusing and
threatening was alleged to be done with deceased as well as his
father, so it cannot be said that applicants had knowledge or
intention that deceased should commit surcide. There is no
evidence that they provoked, incited or encouraged deceased to
commit suicide. It is also not alleged that when applicants
threatened to kili deceased and his father Jagdish they were
armed with some weapons. So it cannot be presumed that
deceased was so frightened that he had no option left except
committing suicide and was compelled to do so."
11. The act of the petitioner, in the opinion of this Court does not attract
Section 306/34 of IPC. In absence of establishing necessary ingredients for
attracting Section 306/34 of the IPC, the petitioner cannot be compelled to face
the trial unnecessarily.
12. In view of the foregoing analysis, no offence under Section 306/34 of
the IPC is made out against the petitioner even if the allegations levelled against
him are assumed to be true. As a consequence, the petition is allowed and FIR
dated 06.11.2022 registered vide Crime No.645/2022 at Police Station
Nanakheda, District Ujjain, charge-sheet and all the subsequent proceedings are
hereby quashed against the petitioner.
C.c. as per rules.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
jyoti
