Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jeetendra Lakhotiya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 February, 2024
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 28th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 8548 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
JEETENDRA LAKHOTIYA S/O
RAMESHCHANDRA LAKHOTIYA, AGED
ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
BUSINESS R/O 8/24 MAHESH NAGAR
DISTT.INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ASHISH GUPTA - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
STATION HOUSE OFFICER THROUGH
1.
POLICE STATION CHANDAN NAGAR
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
AYUSH S/O LATE SHRI GOPAL
MANDHANIYA, AGED ABOUT 30
YEARS, OCCUPATION: CHARTED
2.
ACCOUNTANT 33-B, SECTOR-C,
SCHEME NO. 71, DISTRICT INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
( BY SHRI ANENDRA SINGH PARIHAR - PANEL LAWYER)
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed
the following:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NEERAJ
SARVATE
Signing time: 01-03-2024
13:59:16
2
ORDER
1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 has been preferred by the petitioner/accused for
quashment of FIR No.921/2020 for the offence punishable under
Section 306/34 of the IPC at Police station Chandan Nagar, District
Indore and the final report filed in connection with the said FIR.
2. As per the prosecution, on 27.06.2020 deceased namely; Gopal
Mandhania committed suicide by hanging himself. On his death. a merg
was registered and investigation was commenced during the course of
which a suicide note in handwriting of the deceased was recovered. The
statements of various witnesses were also recorded. From the aforesaid,
it transpired that the deceased had got the petitioner to pay some
amount to a third person through him and he was liable to pay that
amount on that count. Petitioner was pressurizing the deceased for
returning of the said amount and was also threatening initiating
proceedings against him for recovery. On account of harassment having
been meted out to him by petitioner as aforesaid, the deceased
eventually committed suicide. On completion of the investigation, the
charge sheet has been filed by the Police 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 is no allegation against the petitioner of either
instigating or abetting the deceased in any manner to commit suicide
and it cannot be said that due to acts of the petitioner the deceased had
no other option but to commit suicide. He had various other legal
remedies available to him.
4. The allegation against the petitioner is that he had advanced an
amount to a third person at the instance of the deceased and was
pressurizing him for return of the amount. 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.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/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.
6. I have heard the parties at length and have perused the record.
7. Section 107 of IPC makes it obligatory for the prosecution to
show and establish the element of instigation. The Apex Court in the
case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
(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 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."
8. In the case of Sanju (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
prosecution is read and believed as such, it will be clear that the
petitioner had advanced money to a third person at the instance of the
deceased and had been demanding back the same and had been
pressurizing him for its return.
9. 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 aperson 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."
10. 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 had been
pressuring the deceased for return of money and had been threatened
instituting legal proceedings against him, it will not fall within the
ambit of "incitement" or "instigation".
11. 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 suicide. There is no evidence that they
provoked, incited or encouraged deceased to
commit suicide. It is also not alleged that when
applicants threatened to kill 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."
12. The act of the petitioner in the opinion of this Court does not
attract Section 306 of IPC. In absence of establishing necessary
ingredients for attracting Section 306 of IPC, petitioner cannot be
compelled to face the trial unnecessarily.
13. In view of the aforesaid analysis the initiation and continuation of
proceedings against the petitioner would be a gross abuse of the process
of law. The entire allegations leveled against the petitioner even if
accepted to be true at his face value do not show commission of any
offence by him. Consequentially the petition deserves to be and is
hereby allowed and the FIR registered under Section 306/34 of IPC
vide Crime No.921/2020 at Police Station Chandan Nagar, District
Indore in so far as it relates to the petitioner is hereby quashed.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
ns
