Guruprasad vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 14424 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Guruprasad vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 May, 2024

Author: Prakash Chandra Gupta

Bench: Prakash Chandra Gupta

                                                         1
                          IN    THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                               AT INDORE
                                                  BEFORE
                               HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA
                                               ON THE 16 th OF MAY, 2024
                                        CRIMINAL REVISION No. 3099 of 2023

                         BETWEEN:-
                         1.    GURUPRASAD S/O BRAJMOHANLAL TIWARI,
                               AGED 62 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NIL R/O GRAM
                               MAIDANI, P.S. CHORHATA, DISTRICT REWA
                               (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         2.    PRARTHNA W/O AJAY DWIVEDI, AGED 27 YEARS,
                               OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE R/O GRAM MAIDANI,
                               P.S. CHORHATA, DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA
                               PRADESH)

                         3.    RAMA W/O GURUPRASAD TIWARI, AGED 58
                               YEAR S, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE R/O GRAM
                               MAIDANI, P.S. CHORHATA, DISTRICT REWA
                               (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         4.    PRINCE @ PRASHANT S/O GURUPRASAD TIWARI,
                               AGED 24 YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDENT R/O
                               GRAM MAIDANI, P.S. CHORHATA, DISTRICT
                               REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                   .....PETITIONERS
                         (BY SHRI N.L. SONI - SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SHRI DIPESH JOSHI -
                         ADVOCATE)

                         AND
                         THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE
                         STATION BADWAH, DISTRICT KHARGONE (MADHYA
                         PRADESH)

                                                                           .....RESPONDENT/STATE
                         (BY SHRI HEMANT SHARMA - GOVT. ADVOCATE)

                               This revision coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                         following:
                                                          ORDER

This criminal revision u/S 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by petitioners/accused persons being aggrieved by the order dated 08.04.2023 passed by I District and Additional Sessions Judge, Barwah, West Nemar in S.T. No.3/2023 whereby the learned trial Court has framed charge against the petitioners u/S 306 r/w 34 of IPC.

2. According to the prosecution story, petitioners/accused persons Guru Prasad and Rama Bai were father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased Ajay and Prarthana and Prince @ Prashant were wife and brother-in-law of the deceased. Marriage of the deceased was solemnized on 26.04.2018 with petitioner No.2 Prarthana. On 25.11.2021, the deceased committed suicide by

jumping in Narmada River. On 27.11.2021, his dead body was found at Goralla Ghat of Narmada River. Therefore, a Marg Intimation was registered. A suicide note was seized from the boot of Activa vehicle of the deceased. Statement of witnesses have been recorded and it reveals that the deceased and his parents were resident of village Duhari P/S Chirhata Distt. - Rewa. The petitioners are residents of Indore. Deceased used to live in Indore and sometimes used to go to his parents house alongwith his wife and used to return in few days. In the month of May, the deceased alongwith his wife had gone to his parents house and on the second day, the petitioner No.2/wife had left the house for the last time and did not return back. When the deceased went to bring her back, then the accused persons told him to transfer his share of land in favour of his wife, then only his wife will live with him. On the next day, on 22.11.2019, the accused Prarthana had lodged a false FIR against deceased and his parents at P/S Churhat i.e., Crime No.600/2019 offence 498A, 506 and 34 of IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, wherein they had to get bail. Almost 6-7 months

later, father of the deceased Pramod Kumar Diwedi had told the accused

persons that he will get the house and other property transferred in the name of deceased but they did not agree and said that the property must be transferred in the name of accused Prarthana only. Accused Prarthana also said that for the compromise in the dowry case, she needs the part of property of deceased and Rs.1 Crore and the deceased will not be able to marry because of the running case. It is alleged that due to aforementioned continuous harassment given by accused persons, the deceased had committed suicide.

3. The learned trial Court after hearing both the parties, had framed charge against the petitioners as mentioned above.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners/accused persons submits that even if the allegation levelled by the prosecution against the petitioners is considered to be true, then too no alleged offence u/S 306 of IPC is made out. There are several omissions and contradictions in the prosecution story. As allegation levelled against the petitioners does not come under abetment as provided u/S 107 of IPC. There is no such allegation that the accused persons had abetted the deceased. The accused Prarthana lodged an FIR against the deceased and his parents which is pending before JMFC, Rewa, which is a legal proceeding. From the aforementioned, it cannot and shall not be construed as abetment by the petitioners. FIR was lodged belatedly by 6 months of the incident. The learned trial Court without considering the aforementioned facts and

circumstances of the case has erred by framing charge against the petitioners. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the case of State of Madhya Pradesh V Murlidas Bairagi and others [MCRC No.9928/2016].

5. On other hand, learned counsel for the State/respondent has

vehemently opposed the prayer of learned counsel for the petitioners and supported the impugned order.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

7. It is apposite to reproduce here S. 107 of IPC, which runs as under:-

"107. A person abets the doing of a thing, who - First - Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly - Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of thatthing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly - Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. Explanation 1. - A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by willful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing. Explanation 2 - Whoever, either prior to or at the time of commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act."

8. In the case of Murlidas Bairagi (Supra), Coordinate Bench of this Court has observed as under:-

"11. Without having taken recourse to the remedies available to him under law, the deceased had chosen to commit suicide. Unfortunate, as it is, but the same against be construed as adequate to establish the charges against the respondents under Section 306 of IPC."

9. In the case of State of Orissa V Devendranath Padhi [2004 Lawsuit SC 1408] is worth to refer here as under:-

"Further, at the stage of framing of charge, rowing and fishing inquiry is impermissible. If the contention of the accused is accepted, there will be a mini trial at the stage of framing of charge that would defeat the object of the court. It is well settled that at the stage of framing of charge the defence of the accused cannot be put forth."

10. This Court is conscious of the various decisions laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court on the point. In the case of Union of India V Prafull

Kumar Sawal and Anr. [AIR 1979 SC 366], the Apex Court has given following observation:-

"The scope of Section 227 of the Code was considered by a recent decision of this Court in the case of State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh ([1978]1 S.C.R. 287) where Untwalia, J. speaking for the Court observed as follows:-

"Strong suspicion against the accused, if the matter remains in the region of suspicion, cannot take the place of proof of his guilt at the conclusion of the trial. But at the initial stage if there is a strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence then it is not open to the Court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The presumption of the guilt of the accused which is to be drawn at the initial stage is not in the sense of the law governing the trial of criminal cases in France where the accused is presumed to be guilty unless the contrary is proved. But it is only for the purpose of deciding prima facie whether the Court should proceed with the trial or not. If the evidence which the Prosecutor pro poses to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused even if fully accepted before it is challenged in cross- examination or rebut ted by the defence evidence; if any, cannot show that the accused committed the offence then there will be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial". proceeding with the trial."

11. In the case of Ravi Kumar Pandey V State of M.P. [2018 lawsuit MP 2190], this Court has held as under:-

"The standard of test, proof and judgment which is to be applied finally before finding, the accused guilty or otherwise, is not exactly to be applied at the stage of framing of charge by the trial Court. At this stage, even a very strong suspicion founded upon material before the trial Court, which leads him to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged may justify the framing of charge against the accused in respect of the commission of that offence is lawful."

12. In this respect, the revisional jurisdiction of this Court regarding framing of charges is also worth to be considered, in this regard the view of

Apex Court in the case of Amit Kumar V Ramesh Chandar [(2022) 9 SCC 460] has opined as under:-

"The jurisdiction of the Court under Section 397 can be exercised so as to examine the correctness, legality or proprietary of an order passed by the trial court or the inferior court, as the case may be. Though the section does not specifically use the expression 'prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice', the jurisdiction under Section 397 is a very limited one. The legality, proprietary or correctness of an order passed by a court is the very foundation of exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 but ultimately it also requires justice to be done. The jurisdiction could be exercised where there is palpable error, non- compliance with the provisions of law, the decision is completely erroneous or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily. "

13. In the case of State of Rajasthan V Fateh Karan Mehdu [(2020) 3 SCC 998], the Apex Court has held as under:-

"26. The scope of interference and exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. has been time and again explained by this Court. Further, the scope of interference under Section 397 Cr.P.C. at a stage, when charge had been framed, is also well settled. At the stage of framing of a charge, the court is concerned not with the proof of the allegation rather it has to focus on the material and form an opinion whether there is strong suspicion that the accused has committed an offence, which if put to trial, could prove his guilt. The framing of charge is not a stage, at which stage final test of guilt is to be applied. Thus, to hold that at the stage of framing the charge, the court should form an opinion that the accused is certainly guilty of committing an offence, is to hold something which is neither permissible nor is in consonance with scheme of Code of Criminal Procedure."

14. In the instant case, as alleged, the petitioners had demanded Rs.1 Crore and land to compromise a criminal case lodged by accused Prarthana and due to the aforementioned demand, the petitioners had continuously kept the deceased under physical and mental harassment. Therefore, the deceased had committed suicide. In suicide note, it has been stated that the cause of

death are the petitioners, who have harassed him by lodging cases and demanding Rs.1 Crore and in consequence of such harassment, he has taken such step of committing suicide. Aforementioned act of the petitioners, prima facie comes under abetment as provided u/S 107 of IPC. It also appears that there is sufficient material available in the case to frame charge u/S 306 of IPC against the petitioners. Therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly framed the aforementioned charge. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity, impropriety and perversity. Therefore, no interference is warranted.

15. Accordingly, the revision petition sans merits, hence, is hereby dismissed and impugned order of the trial Court is affirmed.

16. It is made clear that this Court has not made any observation on the merit of the case and this order shall not come in the way of learned trial Court in passing the final judgment.

(PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA) JUDGE Shruti