Madhya Pradesh High Court
Banwari Rathore vs State Of M.P Through P.S Aerodrome on 6 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:20939
1 CRR-6257-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 6257 of 2024
BANWARI RATHORE
Versus
STATE OF M.P THROUGH P.S AERODROME
Appearance:
Shri Amol Shrivastava - learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Rahul Solanki - learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
HEARD ON : 25.07.2025
POSTED ON : 06.08.2025
....................................................................................................................................................
ORDER
This Criminal Revision under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 is preferred challenging the order dated 23.09.2024 passed
in S.T.No.632/2024 by the 28th Additional Session Judge, Indore whereby an
application under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. for discharge in a case arising
out of Crime No.131/2021 registered at Police Station Aerodrum, Indore has
been rejected.
2. The facts as disclosed from final report (Annexure-P/2) and the
documents submitted alongwith the final report are that deceased Pooja (wife
of present petitioner) was married to revision petitioner in the year 2016.
Within seven years of marriage with revision petitioner Pooja ended her life
by committing suicide on 25.01.2021 as a result of suspected poisoning and
its complications resulted in cardiorespiratory failure. A merg No.6/21 was
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:20939
2 CRR-6257-2024
registered at Police Station Aerodrum, Indore and after enquiry an offence
under Section 306 of the IPC was registered on 04.03.2021. Investigation
disclosed that the revision petitioner/husband was continously harassing his
wife/Pooja. When Pooja got pregnant and during the period of her pregnancy
also petitioner/husband continued to harass her. When Pooja was carrying 8
months pregnancy then revision petitioner quarreled with wife Pooja and left
her alone in Bombay and returned to Indore. Pooja anyhow managed to
return Indore and was residing at her paternal home. Pooja delivered a child
at Malwa Hospital, Indore but petitioner/husband did not attend her at
Hospital. Due to harassment by the petitioner/husband, Pooja ended her life
on 25.01.2021.
3. The revision petitioner/husband challenged the proceedings through
M.Cr.C.No.39485 of 2021 under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973 and withdrew the said petition with the liberty to raise all the
objections at the time of framing of charges during the course of trial on
12.01.2023. Thereafter, revision petitioner/husband filing the application
under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking
discharge and that application was rejected vide order dated 23.09.2024.
4. The impugned order has been challenged on the ground that the
deceased/wife Pooja was living separately from the revision petitioner at her
parental house for atleast 14 months prior to the incident. It has also not been
disclosed from the allegation that whether proximate to the date of suicide
any actions could be attributed to the petitioner which has pushed the
deceased to such an extent so as to commit suicide, therefore, the allegation
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:20939
3 CRR-6257-2024
on their face value do not form the necessary ingredients of offence under
Section 306 of the IPC, 1860. There is considerable delay in lodging of FIR
from the date of alleged incident, and the deceased has left no suicide note in
the present matter. No overt act or specific allegation or material to infer
intentional aiding by any act or illegal omission to confine to the definition
of abetement under Section 107 of the IPC is brought on record. No specific
details of harassment or mental torture are mentioned in the F.I.R. In support
of his petition, the counsel for the revision petitioner has placed reliance on
various judgments i.e. Soma Chakravarty vs. State [(2007) 5 SCC 403], State
of Andhra Pradesh vs. Golkonda Lingaswamy [(2004) 6 SCC 522],
Omkarnath Mishra vs. State [(2008) 2 SCC 561], M. Arjunan vs. State
(Represented by its Inspector of Police) [(2019) 3 SCC 315], Gurcharan
Singh vs. State of Punjab [(2020) 10 SCC 200], Mariano Anto Bruno and
Another vs. Inspector of Police [(2022) SCC OnLine SC 1387] and Naresh
Kumar vs. State of Haryana [(2024) 3 SCC 573].
5. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the revision petition.
6. Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.
7. This case relates to the suicide by a married woman where wife has
committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her
marriage and the allegations are that the husband had subjected her to cruelty
and the extent of cruelty is that eight months pregnant Pooja was left alone in
Bombay to face her fate and during her delivery time, revision
petitioner/husband did not turn to her and the facts as taken at its face value
establish the foundational facts in which the trial Court may presume having
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:20939
4 CRR-6257-2024
regard to all others circumstances of the case that such suicide had been
abeted by her husband attracting presumption under Section 113A of the
Evidence Act, 1872. Apart from Section 306 of the IPC, an offence under
Section 498A of the IPC covered under explanation (a) is disclosed from the
allegations made in the final report. Accordingly, this case has to dealt with
in the light of presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act, 1872
and revision petitioner/husband did not succeed on the reference
of judgments i.e. Soma Chakravarty (supra), Golkonda Lingaswamy (supra),
Omkarnath Mishra (supra), M. Arjunan (supra), Gurcharan Singh (supra),
Mariano Anto Bruno (supra) and Naresh Kumar (supra). Hence, there is no
illegality in the impugned order. This Criminal Revision filed under Section
397 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 stands dismissed.
No order as to costs.
C.C. as per rules.
(GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE
VS
