Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mohammad Nazim vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 May, 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 1st OF MAY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 14775 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
MOHAMMAD NAZIM S/O MOHAMMAD
YUNUS, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: BUSINESS 12 GAUTAM
MARG, GALI NO.2, JAIN COLONY,
DISTT UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI JITENDRA SHARMA - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
STATION HOUSE OFFICER
1. THROUGH POLICE STATION
KOTWALI UJJAIN DISTT UJJAIN
(MADHYA PRADESH)
IKHTIYAR S/O MUKHTIYAR, AGED
ABOUT 55 YEARS, 20, MILKIPURA,
2.
UJJAIN, DISTRICT- UJJAIN
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
( RESPONDENT NO.1/STATE BY SHRI KAPIL MAHANT - PANEL
LAWYER)
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed
the following:
ORDER
1. This petition has been preferred by the petitioner/accused under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashment of
FIR No.64/2024 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Ujjain
for offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC and Section 3 and
4 of Madhya Pradesh Riniyon Ka Sanrakshan Adhiniyam.
2. As per the prosecution, on 31.01.2024, the deceased Imtiyaz
committed suicide by hanging himself. On his death a merg was
registered and investigation was commenced during the course of which
statements of various witnesses were recorded from which it transpired
that the petitioner about 7-8 months had along with the other co-
accused advanced certain sum to the deceased and had been charging
hefty interest from him. When the deceased could not pay the amount
of interest they went to his house and took away his Yahama motorcycle
and did not return the same. Deceased paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- to
them from concealing the same from his wife but thereafter also they
continued to harass him. They continued to do so for a very long time.
Eventually on account of the harassment having been meted out to him
by the petitioner and the other co-accused by making demand of money
along with interest and by threatening him, the deceased committed
suicide. Upon completion of the investigation the FIR has been
registered against the petitioner for offence as aforesaid.
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
their face value do not amount to commission of any offence punishable
under Section 306 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 only to the effect that he
had advanced certain amount to the deceased and had been harassing
him for recovery of interest on that count and had also threatened him
in that regard. 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 certain amount to the deceased and had been
harassing him for recovery of interest on that count and had also
threatened him in that regard.
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 advanced
certain amount to the deceased and had been harassing him for recovery
of interest on that count and had also threatened him in that regard, 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 of IPC vide
Crime No.64/2024 at Police Station Kotwali, District Ujjain in so far as
it relates to the petitioner is hereby quashed.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
ns
