Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pradeep @ Veeru Wadhwani vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 April, 2025
Author: Sanjay Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Dwivedi
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17977
1 MCRC-53923-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI
ON THE 15th OF APRIL, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 53923 of 2024
PRADEEP @ VEERU WADHWANI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Smt. Manjeet P.S. Chuckal - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri B.K. Upadhyay - Government Advocate for the respondent-State.
Shri Aditya Khampariya - Advocate for the objector.
ORDER
Case diary is available.
With the consent of both the parties, the matter is finally heard.
This is a petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Adhiniyam, 2023 read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking
quashing of FIR/Crime No. 304/2023 registered at Police Station Damoh,
District Damoh for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian
Penal Code read with Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled
Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and also consequent charge sheet
filed on 11.05.2023.
2 . As per the case of the prosecution, the deceased Krishan @
Krishanbhushan Ahirwar committed suicide after being cut off from the train
and accordingly a Marg No. 60/2023 was registered under Section 174 of
Cr.P.C. A suicide note was recovered from the body of the deceased, which
contained the reasons for committing suicide by the deceased. As per the
said suicide note, the reason for committing suicide was demand of theft
money.
3 . The suicide note is available alongwith the charge sheet filed by the
counsel for the petitioner. As per the suicide note, the deceased was working
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17977
2 MCRC-53923-2024
as a Salesman in the shop owned by the petitioner's father in the name and
style 'Krishna Sales'. It is alleged in the suicide note that the deceased
committed suicide since the petitioner was demanding the amount, which
was said to have been stolen from the said shop. The deceased alleged in the
suicide note that the present petitioner is responsible for his suicide because
since last one and a half year although he had been working in the shop of
the petitioner, but no wages were paid to him and allegation of theft was also
made against him. It is further alleged in the suicide note that the petitioner
had created pressure upon the deceased and taken a written note from him
that if Rs.25,000/- is not paid by him till 11.05.2023, the petitioner will tell
everyone that the deceased had committed theft and as such the petitioner is
responsible for his death.
4 . The statements of the witnesses have also been recorded under Section
180 BNSS (Section 161 Cr.P.C.) and they have reiterated the facts as
mentioned in the suicide note of the deceased.
5 . Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even if the contents of
FIR are considered to be true at their face value even then it is clear that the
material ingredients for constituting an offence under Section 306 of IPC are
completely missing in the present case and no case under Section 306 of IPC
is made out against the petitioner and consequently, the FIR and the charge
sheet deserve to be quashed.
6 . In support of her contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has
placed heavy reliance upon the judgments rendered by the Supreme Court in
re Mahendra Awase vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh - Criminal Appeal No.
221 of 2025 (@ Special Leave petition (CRL.) No. 11868 of 2023) decided
on 17.01.2025 and Ayyub & Ors vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. -
Criminal Appeal No. 461 of 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (CRL.) No.
7371 of 2024) decided on 07.02.2025.
7 . Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State as well as the
objector have opposed the submission made by the learned counsel for the
petitioner and submitted that in view of the facts mentioned in the suicide
note, the offence under Section 306 of IPC has rightly been registered
against the petitioner and therefore, the FIR and the charge sheet cannot be
quashed.
8 . I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17977
3 MCRC-53923-2024
parties and perused the record.
9 . On examining the suicide note of the deceased and considering the
overall facts and circumstances of the present case, it is evidently clear that
the material ingredients for constituting an offence under Section 306 of IPC
are missing in the present case because there is no specific allegation of
abetment, as contemplated under Section 107 of the IPC. The petitioner
cannot be held responsible for the death of deceased merely because he
demanded money, which according to him, was stolen from his shop. If the
deceased was hurt by any act of the petitioner, he could have made a
complaint to the police and could have also denied refund of the said money,
but merely because theft is alleged against him and stolen money was
demanded by the petitioner, it cannot be said to be a cause for committing
suicide because the overall circumstances of the case do not reveal that there
was any abetment or instigation on the part of the petitioner to commit
suicide. In the present case even if contents of FIR and other material
available with the charge sheet are considered to be true at their face value
then also the offence under Section 306 of IPC is not established against the
petitioner.
1 0 . The Supreme Court in re State of Haryana & others vs. Bhajan Lal &
others reported in 1992 Supp 1 SCC 335 has categorized the cases wherein
powers under Article 226 of the Constitution or under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
can be exercised. The relevant para is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various
relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the
principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of
decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power
under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of
the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we
give the following categories of cases by way of illustration
wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent
abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the
ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any
precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and
inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an
exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power
should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report
or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and
accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any
offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and
other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17977
4 MCRC-53923-2024
a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police
officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an
order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of
the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or
complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same
do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out
a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer
without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under
Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so
absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no
prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is
sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the
provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a
criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and
continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a
specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act,
providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the
aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with
mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on
the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and
personal grudge."
1 1 . Recently the Supreme Court in re Mahendra Awase (supra) while
dealing with the charge framed under Section 306 of IPC has observed as
under:
"12. Section 107 of the IPC reads as under:--
"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."
As is clear from the plain language of the Sections to attract
the ingredient of Section 306, the accused should have
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17977
5 MCRC-53923-2024
abetted the commission of a suicide. A person abets the doing
of a thing who Firstly - instigates any person to do that thing
o r 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.
14. In Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat,
(2010) 8 SCC 628, this Court held that in order to bring out
an offence under Section 306 IPC specific abetment as
contemplated by Section 107 IPC on the part of the accused
with an intention to bring about the suicide of the person
concerned as a result of that abetment is required. It was
further held that the intention of the accused to aid or to
instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a must
for attracting Section 306.
16. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306
IPC there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of
the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the
commission of suicide must have played an active role by an
act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the
commission of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the
person charged with the said offence must be proved and
established by the prosecution before he could be convicted
under Section 306 IPC."
Further in re Ayyub & Others (supra) , the Supreme Court observed as
under:-
"18. We find that based on the charge-sheet filed by the
police on 2-5-2023 and the cryptic order of cognizance dated
17-6-2023, the proceedings cannot be allowed to be carried
on against the appellants. Even taking the allegation on a
demurrer, on the facts of the case, an offence under Section
306IPC cannot be said to be made out against the appellants.
The law on Section 306IPC is well settled.
19. In Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of M.P. [Swamy
Prahaladdas v. State of M.P. , 1995 Supp (3) SCC 438 : 1995
SCC (Cri) 943] , the appellant remarked to the deceased that
"go and die" and the deceased thereafter committed suicide.
This Court held that : (SCC p. 439, para 3)
"3 ... Those words are casual in nature which are often
employed in the heat of the moment between quarrelling
people. Nothing serious is expected to follow thereafter.
The said act does not reflect the requisite mens rea on the
assumption that these words would be carried out in all
events."
20. By a long line of judgments, this Court has reiterated that
in order to make out an offence under Section 306 IPC,
specific abetment as contemplated by Section 107 IPC on the
part of the accused with an intention to bring about the suicide
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17977
6 MCRC-53923-2024
of the person concerned as a result of that abetment is
required. It has been further held that the intention of the
accused to aid or instigate or to abet the deceased to commit
suicide is a must for attracting Section 306IPC (see Madan
Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat [Madan Mohan
Singh v. State of Gujarat, (2010) 8 SCC 628 : (2010) 3 SCC
(Cri) 1048 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 682] ). Further, the alleged
harassment meted out should have left the victim with no
other alternative but to put an end to her life and that in cases
of abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect
acts of incitement to commit suicide (see Amalendu
Pal v. State of W.B. [Amalendu Pal v. State of W.B., (2010) 1
SCC 707 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 896] and M.
Mohan v. State [M. Mohan v. State, (2011) 3 SCC 626 :
(2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 1] and Ramesh Kumar v. State of
Chhattisgarh [Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001)
9 SCC 618 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 1088] ).
21. These principles have been reiterated recently by this
Court in Mahendra Awase v. State of M.P. [Mahendra
Awase v. State of M.P. , (2025) 4 SCC 801 : 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 107 : 2025 INSC 76]"
12. Thus, from the above, it is explicitly clear that in order to bring a case
within the purview of Section Section 306 IPC, a specific abetment as
contemplated under Section 107 IPC on the part of the accused with an
intention to bring about the suicide of the person concerned is required. It is
also important for attracting Section 306 IPC that there should be intention of
the accused to aid or instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide.
13. In the case at hand, from the FIR as well as the suicide note, it clearly
reveals that the deceased had committed suicide due to the following
reasons:
(1) The deceased was working as a Salesman in the shop owned by the
petitioner's father in the name of 'Krishna Sales'.
(2) The petitioner was demanding the amount said to have been stolen
from the said shop.
(3) Although the deceased was working in the shop of the petitioner for last
one and a half year, but no wages were paid to him and allegation of theft
was also made by against him.
(4) The petitioner created pressure upon the deceased and took a written
note from him that if Rs. 25,000/- is not paid by him till 11.05.2023, the
petitioner will tell every one that the deceased committed theft.
1 4 . It is also to be mentioned here that the witnesses have also reiterated
the above facts in their statements.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17977
7 MCRC-53923-2024
1 5 . On a conscious analysis of the of the aforementioned reasons for
committing suicide by the deceased, I do not find that the petitioner at any
point of time abeted or he had any intention to aid or instigate the deceased
to commit suicide.
1 6 . Considering the aforesaid and taking note of the law laid down by the
Supreme Court on the issue, this petition deserves to be and is hereby
allowed.
1 7 . The FIR/Crime No. 304/2023 registered at Police Station Damoh,
District Damoh for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian
Penal Code read with Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled
Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and also consequent charge sheet
filed on 11.05.2023 are hereby quashed.
(SANJAY DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
RAGHVENDRA
