Devkishan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 14070 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Devkishan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 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 14 th OF MAY, 2024
                                         MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 14355 of 2024

                           BETWEEN:-
                           DEVKISHAN S/O DAMARLAL, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
                           OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST R/O: VILLAGE PIPLIYA
                           RAVJI MANASA DISTRICT NEEMUCH (MADHYA
                           PRADESH)

                                                                                         .....PETITIONER
                           (BY SHRI SANTOSH KUMAR MEENA - ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH MANASA
                           P.S. MANASA DIST. NEEMUCH (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                       .....RESPONDENT
                           (BY SHRI RAJESH JOSHI - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

                                 This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
                           following:
                                                              ORDER

This petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C has been preferred by the

petitioner for quashment of FIR No.153/2019 registered at Police Station Manasa, District Neemuch for offences punishable under Sections 306, 384 and 201 of the IPC.

02. As per the prosecution, on 28.02.2019 one Babulal committed suicide by hanging himself. On his death, a merg was registered and investigation was commenced during course of which statements of various witnesses were recorded. From the same, it transpired that the petitioner had been threatening

the deceased of falsely implicating him in a case of theft and had been

demanding a sum of Rs.5-6,00,000/- from him and had been stating that if he does not want his name to come up in a case of theft, he should pay the amount to him. The said threat was extended by him on 25.02.2019 also. Due to the harassment having been meted out by the petitioner to the deceased by demanding amount from him from time to time and by threatening him to implicate him in a false case, the deceased committed suicide. Upon completion of the investigation, FIR has been registered against the petitioner and eventually the final report has been filed before the Court concerned.

03. 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 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 that he had been threatening the deceased of getting him implicating in a false case of theft and had been demanding a sum of Rs.5-6,00,000/- from him on account of which he felt 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.

04. 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.

05. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have perused the record.

06. 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 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."

07. 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.

08. 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."

09. 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 threatening the deceased of getting him implicating in a false case of theft and had been demanding a sum of Rs.5-6,00,000/- from him on account of which he felt harassed 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 of IPC. In absence of establishing necessary ingredients for attracting Section 306 of the IPC, the petitioner cannot be compelled to face the trial unnecessarily. The allegation against the petitioner is only that he had been trying to extract money from the deceased. However, there is no allegation that any actual extortion of money was made by him from the deceased. Only threats were given by him to the deceased in that regard and the actual passing of the amount did not take place. Under such circumstances, offence under Section 384 of the IPC is also not made out against the petitioner. There is does no evidence for invocation of Section 201 of the IPC against him.

12. In view of the foregoing analysis, no offence under Section 306 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 registered vide Crime No.153/2019 at Police Station Manasa, District Neemuch are hereby quashed against the petitioner.

C.c. as per rules.

(PRANAY VERMA) JUDGE Shilpa