Madhya Pradesh High Court
Prabal Mehta vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 May, 2024
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 17 th OF MAY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 6625 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
1. PRABAL MEHTA S/O SHRI CHANDRA KANT
MEHTA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
GOVERNMENT SERVANT POST AS P.G.T.
COMPUTER SCIENCE TEACHER SHRAMODAY
VIDHYAKLAYA NEELBADH BHOPAL QUARTER
NO. 110 GOVERNMENT SHARAMODAYA
VIDHYALAYA NEELBADH BHOPAL DISTRICT
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. RAVINDRA AGNIHOTRI S/O SHRI MAHESH
PRASAD AGNIHOTRI, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: GOVERNMENT SERVANT POSTED
AS LIBRARIAN IN SHRAMODAY VIDHYAKLAYA
NEELADH BHOPAL R/O F-1 BALAK CHHATRAVAS
GOVERNMENT SHRAMODAYA VIDHYALAYA
NEELBADH BHOPAL DISTRICT (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI GHANSHYAM SHARMA - ADVOCATE )
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
POLICE STATION KHAJURI SADAK DISTRICT
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. RAJARAM CHADAR S/O NOT MENTION R/O
VILLAGE MAWAI POLICE STATION DEHAT
TIKAMGARH DISTRICT TIKAMGARH (M.P.)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SHANTI TIWARI - PANEL LAWYER)
(SHRI NEERAJ JAIN - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANOJ NAIR
Signing time: 5/25/2024
12:31:34 PM
2
ORDER
This is a petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking quashment
o f the FIR vide Crime No.275/2023 registered at the Police Station, Khajuri
Sadak District Bhopal in respect of the offence punishable under Sections 323,
305 and 34 of IPC and Sections 75 and 82 of Juvenile Justice (Protection and
Care of Child) Adhiniyam and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act and ensued
proceedings.
2 . Learned counsel for the applicants contends that the applicants are
Government Servants. Applicant no.1 is PGT in Computer Science and
applicant no.2 is Librarian working with Shramoday Government School,
Ratibagh, Bhopal. A case under Sections 323, 305 and 34 of IPC and Sections
75 and 82 of Juvenile Justice (Protection and Care of Child) Adhiniyam and
Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act was registered vide Crime No.275/2023 against
t h e applicants, on the allegations that one student of the school namely
Abhishek Chadar committed suicide as he was scolded and also manhandled
by the present applicants.
3 . It is contended by the counsel that the allegations are completely
baseless. The deceased student was found to be indulged in theft of a mobile
phone of another student and the said act was recorded in CCTV camera and
accordingly, the present applicants admonished the conduct of the student and
he was cautioned not to act or behave in an inappropriate manner. However, the
aforesaid incident has been made basis to falsely implicate the present
applicants. It is contended by the counsel that the applicants are performing
their duties with utmost dedication and due diligence, and therefore, in
performance of their duties, if they cautioned a student without manhandling,
they could not have been implicated in view of the judgement of the Apex Court
in the case of Geo Varghese v. State of Rajasthan, (2021 19 SCC 144 ) and
also the judgment of this Court in the case of Virendra Singh Rana vs. State
of M.P. (M.Cr.C. No.10743/2023). It is thus, contended by the counsel that
the FIR and the entire proceedings deserve to be quashed.
4. Learned counsel for the State as well as Objector has opposed the
prayer and submitted that in the present case, the applicants have been
implicated on the allegations that they manhandled deceased student on
allegation that he had stolen mobile phone of another student namely Satyendra
Lodhi. As the act of the deceased student was recorded in the CCTV camera,
the present applicants not only scolded the deceased but also manhandled him.
The said allegations are clearly mentioned in the FIR and also evident from the
statement of the witnesses. Thus, counsel submits that the petition deserves to
be dismissed.
5. Heard the submissions and perused the record.
6 . The record in the present case reflects that the deceased who was
student of Shramoday Government School, Ratibagh, Bhopal and was residing
in hostel, on allegation of theft of a mobile phone of another inmate of the hostel
was admonished and was also manhandled. The present applicants who are
Computer Science Teacher and Librarian respectively in the same school are
being charged with the aforesaid allegations. In order to deal with the
allegations, it is first important to take into consideration the statement of father
of the deceased recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. The father of the
deceased in his statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. stated that upon
coming to know about the news regarding commission of suicide by his son, he
came to Bhopal and thereafter, the students who were residing in the hostel
informed the father of the deceased that the present applicants admonished and
also manhandled the deceased. Two other students Deepa Chadar and Rashmi
Chadar also informed the father of the deceased that the present applicants had
committed marpeet with the deceased.
7. It is further evident from perusal of the statement of one Hari Ram
Chadar who is uncle of the deceased that the same two students namely Deepa
Chadar and Rashmi Chadar had given the similar information. The statement of
one Dheeraj Ahirwar who is also student of the school and in fact was
roommate of deceased student in hostel has stated that the deceased as well as
one Gaurav were called by the present applicants and they were cautioned by
the present applicants not to be indulged in such activities in future.
8. The testimonies of another students Deepa Chadar and Rashmi Chadar
are there. They are sisters of the deceased and Deepa Chadar was studying in
the same school and in the statement, they stated that as the deceased was
manhandled by the present applicants, resultantly, he committed suicide. If the
testimony of Anil Maran is perused, the same would reveal that when the
deceased was found to be hanged, he was brought down and was taken to the
hospital by the present applicant no.1 as well. The statement of electrician Yugal
Kishore Patle is there. This electrician Yugal Kishore Patle is the person who is
being projected as eye-witness and according to this witness, the present
applicants had given one slap each to the deceased and another student and
both the students were advised to concentrate on their studies and both the
students had also expressed their apologies. The statement of Gaurav Singh
Gond is also there who is also one inmate of the student. He in his statement
stated that he and deceased were slapped by the present applicant and deceased
used to say that he did not wish to continue in the school and wanted to get a
transfer certificate. Later on i.e. 06.08.2022 deceased committed suicide.
9. Thus, the aforesaid testimonies of all the witnesses reveal that so far as
the present applicants are concerned there are two folds allegations have been
levelled i.e. firstly they admonished the deceased and secondly slapped him as
well. Thus, the aforesaid allegations even if are taken into consideration on their
face value, the same would amount to any instigation to commit suicide or not
is a debatable issue and to deal with this issue, it is apposite to refer the
decision of the Apex Court in Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhatisgarh
(2001 9 SCC 618). The Apex Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar (supra)
held in paragraph 20 as under:-
20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke,
incite or encourage to do "an act". To satisfy the
requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that
actual words must be used to that effect or what
constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically
be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable
certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of
being spelt out. The present one is not a case where the
accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued
course of conduct created such circumstances that the
deceased was left with no other option except to commit
suicide in which case an instigation may have been
inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion
without intending the consequences to actually follow
cannot be said to be instigation.
1 0 . Thus, the conduct so attributed to the present applicants if it
considered in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court, the same would
reveal that there was no instigation or incitement at the behest of the applicants
to the deceased to commit suicide. None of the witnesses deposed that the
present applicant abetted or instigated the deceased to commit suicide. None of
the act of the applicants suggests that the same was within the purview of the
abetment as defined in Section 107 of IPC which is reproduced herein:-
"107. Abetment of a thing.--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 that
thing, 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.
E xp la n a tion 1.--A person who, by wilful
misrepresentation, or by wilful 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 the 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."
11. The Apex Court in the case of Geo Varghese (supra) has considered
the aspect where the teachers are confronted with allegations of instigation to
the student as regards commission of suicide. The Apex Court of in the case of
Geo Varghese (supra) held in paragraph 32 as under.
32. Considering the facts that the appellant holds
a post of a teacher and any act done in discharge of his
moral or legal duty without there being any
circumstances to even remotely indicate that there was
any intention on his part to abet the commission of
suicide by one of his own pupil, no mens rea can be
attributed. Thus, the very element of abetment is
conspicuously missing from the allegations levelled in
the FIR. In the absence of the element of abetment
missing from the allegations, the essential ingredients of
offence under Section 306IPC do not exist.
12. The Apex Court while considering the nature of duties which are
required to be performed by the teachers discussed that if any act is done in
discharge of his moral or legal duty by a teacher without their being any remote
connection to instigate or abet the commission of suicide by one of his own
pupil, no mens rea attributed. Though in the case of Geo Varghese (supra), as
per the factual background the allegations were not of manhandling the students
but there were allegations that the applicant therein had harassed the deceased
from 19.04.2018 till 20.04.2018 and ultimately, the deceased committed suicide
in the intervening night of 25-26/04/2018 as the parents of the deceased were
asked to come to the school.
13. The case in hand stands on better footing so far as the facts of the
said case are concerned. In the present case, the deceased student was found to
be indulged in committing theft of mobile of other inmate of the hostel and the
said act of theft was recorded in the CCTV Camera and accordingly, upon
receiving the complaint, the deceased student was admonished by the present
applicants. Though there are allegations of manhandling as well against the
present applicants and as per the allegations the present applicants slapped the
deceased. However, the said allegations, if are accepted, the same cannot be
said to be remotely connected with an offence under Section 305 of IPC.
14. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that so far as the
charge under Section 305 of IPC is concerned, the same is not sustainable.
15. So far as the allegations pertaining to Sections 323 and 34 of IPC and
Sections 75 and 82 of Juvenile Justice (Protection and Care of Child)
Adhiniyam and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act are concerned, the same are
required to be dealt with after the evidence is adduced by the parties, as this
Court cannot conduct mini trial in terms of law laid down by the Apex Court in
the case of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra
&Ors. reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 315.
17. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the petition under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. stands partly allowed. The proceedings which have been instituted
under Section 305 of IPC against the applicants are concerned, the same stand
quashed.
18. It is clarified that the applicants shall continue to be prosecuted for all
offences except offence under Section 305 of IPC.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
mn
