Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mahendra Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 May, 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 6th OF MAY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 17573 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
MAHENDRA SINGH S/O NARENDRA
SINGH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST R/O
VILLAGE PIPALKHUNTA, TEHSIL-
RATLAM DISTRICT- RATLAM
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ABHAY SARASWAT- ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
STATION HOUSE OFFICER
THROUGH POLICE STATION
BILPANK, DISTRICT RATLAM
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI VISHAL SANOTHIYA - PANEL LAWYER )
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
has been preferred by the petitioner/accused for quashment of FIR
registered vide Crime No.460/2021 at Police Station Bilpank, District
Ratlam for offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC and also charge
sheet dated 25.09.2021 filed in the matter.
2. As per the prosecution, on 11.11.2020, a report was lodged by
Yogendra Singh to the effect that he is the Sarpanch of Village Pipalkhuta
and his brother Vijay Singh has informed that his uncle Mahendra Singh
has committed suicide at Pargantiya water well by hanging himself. On the
information a marg was registered and investigation was commenced
during the course of which a suicide note written by the deceased Mahendra
Singh himself was recovered. Therein he had stated that he is committing
suicide due to the acts of the petitioner who had been talking ill about him
and his family members and had been insulting all of them which had
resulted in loss of his reputation. The same had also resulted in harassment
to him on account of which he is committing suicide. Statements of certain
witnesses were also recorded. On the basis of suicide note and statements of
witnesses, the petitioner has been implicated for the present offence. After
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 their face value
do not amount to an 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 act alleged against the petitioner is only to the effect that he
had been talking ill about the deceased and his family members and had
been insulting them and causing loss of his reputation on account of which
the deceased was feeling harassed. 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 the only allegation against the petitioner is that he
had been talking ill about the deceased and his family members and had
been insulting them and causing loss of his reputation on account of which
the deceased was feeling harassed.
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 talking ill about
the deceased and his family members and had been insulting them and
causing loss of his reputation on account of which the deceased was feeling
harassed, 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.460/2021 at Police
Station Bilpank, District Ratlam in so far as it relates to the petitioner is
hereby quashed.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
jyoti
