[Cites 15, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mahendra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND: 36843
1 CRA. No. 6308 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
ON THE 15th OF DECEMBER, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 6308 of 2024
MAHENDRA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Shri Javed Khan - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Rajesh Joshi- G.A. for the respondent/State.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 20.08.2025
Pronounced on : 15.12.2025
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
This criminal appeal under section 14A (2) of the SC & ST
(Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 is preferred being aggrieved by
order dated 07.03.2024 in SCATR No.08/2024 by Special Judge, SC
& ST (POA) Act, 1989, Dhar whereby the charge under Section 306
of the IPC r/w Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 and
Section 3 r/w Section 4 of M.P. Protection of Debtors Act, 1937 have
framed against the appellant.
2. The facts in brief are that one Jashwant Meda belonging to
Scheduled Tribe community was working as a teacher in
Government High School, Lunhera. The appellant was working as a
peon in that school, who does not belong to SC/ST community. In
the year 2019, the construction of the house was on progress, due to
the scarcity of money deceased Jashwant borrowed an amount of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND: 36843
Rs.1,25,000/- from the present appellant on 15.07.2019 and obtained
blank signed cheques from Jashwant and his wife. Jashwant every
month paid money towards the loan when the salary was credited to
the account. When Jashwant was disturbed then his wife asked the
reason then Jashwant told that Mahendra is demanding Rs.5,00,000/-
and in case Rs.5,00,000/- is not paid, Mahendra would file the
complaints on the strength of signed blank cheques in Court.
Thereafter, the appellant present complaints under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in the Magistrate Courts and
warrants of Jashwant and his wife from the Courts have been issued.
Jashwant and his wife attended the Court usually. Mahendra was
asking for money everyday when Jashwant goes to school. Jashwant
was very upset and usually wept with wife and does not take the
food and then committed suicide on 17.08.2023 and Crime
No.455/2023 at P.S. Nalcha was registered against the appellant for
the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC r/w Section 3(2)(v)
of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 and Section 3 r/w Section 4 of M.P.
Protection of Debtors Act, 1937. Completing the investigation, a
final report was submitted against the appellant under Section 306 of
IPC r/w Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 and Section 3
r/w Section 4 of M.P. Protection of Debtors Act, 1937 .
3. Special Court framed the charges as mentioned in para 1 of the
judgment and challenging the framing of charges, this appeal has
been preferred on the ground that he adopted the course of law for
recovery of money which was borrowed by the Jashwant, no
ingredients of provision of Section 306 of the IPC is attracted. If the
charge under Section 306 of IPC is not attracted then the charge
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND: 36843
under Section 3(2)(v) automatically fails. The deceased was a
government employee and no case for Section 4 of the M.P.
Protection of Debtors Act, 1937 is made out.
Heard.
4. Counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the criminal
appeal by submitting that the impugned order does not require any
interference.
5. Perused the final report submitted under section 173 (2) of the
Cr.P.C., 1973 (presently section 193 of B.N.S.S., 2023) and the
documents collected during the investigation appended with list from
serial number 1 to 32 comprising 116 pages alongwith statement of
six witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. alongwith
mortgage agreement of the house in lieu of the amount available at
Sr. No.21 and the documents with regard to copy of two criminal
complaints filed before the JMFC, Dhar under Section 138 of the
N.I. Act, 1881 against the deceased for dishonor of cheque valued
Rs. 5,00,000/- and another against his wife Sugnabai for dishonor of
cheque valued Rs.2,50,000/-.
6. The Apex Court in the case of Mahendra Awase vs. The State of
Madhya Pradesh; 2025 INSC 76, has summarized the law regarding
applicability of Section 108 of BNS, 2023 and para 11 to 20 is being
reproduced as below:-
"11. Section 306 of the IPC reads as under:-
"306. Abetment of suicide. If any person commits suicide,
whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to
fine."
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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND: 36843
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 abetted the commission of a
suicide. A person abets the doing of a thing who Firstly
- 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.
13. In Swamy Prahaladdas vs. State of M.P. and Another, [1995 Supp (3)
SCC 438], the appellant remarked to the deceased that 'go and die' and the
deceased thereafter, committed suicide. This Court held that:-
"3. ...Those words are casual 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. ..."
14. In Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of Gujarat and Another, (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.
15. In Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal, (2010) 1 SCC
707, this Court held as under:-
"12. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view
that before holding an accused guilty of an offence
under Section 306 IPC, the court must scrupulously
examine the facts and circumstances of the case and
also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to
find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out
to the victim had left the victim with no other
alternative but to put an end to her life. It is also to be
borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of
suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of
incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the
allegation of harassment without there being any
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND: 36843
positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on
the part of the accused which led or compelled the
person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of
Section 306 IPC is not sustainable."
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.
17. M. Mohan vs. State, (2011) 3 SCC 626 followed Ramesh Kumar vs.
State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618, wherein it was held as under:-
41. This Court in SCC para 20 of Ramesh Kumar has
examined different shades of the meaning of
"instigation". Para 20 reads as under: (SCC p. 629)
"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."
In the said case this Court came to the conclusion that
there is no evidence and material available on record
where from an inference of the appellant accused
having abetted commission of suicide by Seema (the
appellant's wife therein) may necessarily be drawn."
Thereafter, this Court in Mohan (supra) held:-
45. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the
cases decided by this Court are 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/she committed suicide."
18. As has been held hereinabove, to satisfy the requirement of instigation the
accused by his act or omission or by a continued course of conduct should have
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND: 36843
created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option
except to commit suicide. It was also held that a word uttered in a fit of anger
and emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be
said to be instigation.
19. Applying the above principle to the facts of the present case, we are
convinced that there are no grounds to frame charges under Section 306 IPC
against the appellant. This is so even if we take the prosecution's case on a
demurrer and at its highest. A reading of the suicide note reveals that the
appellant was asking the deceased to repay the loan guaranteed by the deceased
and advanced to Ritesh Malakar. It could not be said that the appellant by
performing his duty of realising outstanding loans at the behest of his employer
can be said to have instigated the deceased to commit suicide. Equally so, with
the transcripts, including the portions emphasised hereinabove. Even taken
literally, it could not be said that the appellant intended to instigate the
commission of suicide. It could certainly not be said that the appellant by his
acts created circumstances which left the deceased with no other option except
to commit suicide. Viewed from the armchair of the appellant, the exchanges
with the deceased, albeit heated, are not with intent to leave the deceased with
no other option but to commit suicide. This is the conclusion we draw taking a
realistic approach, keeping the context and the situation in mind. Strangely, the
FIR has also been lodged after a delay of two months and twenty days.
20. This Court has, over the last several decades, repeatedly reiterated the higher
threshold, mandated by law for Section 306 IPC [Now Section 108 read with
Section 45 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023] to be attracted. They however
seem to have followed more in the breach. Section 306 IPC appears to be
casually and too readily resorted to by the police. While the persons involved in
genuine cases where the threshold is met should not be spared, the provision
should not be deployed against individuals, only to assuage the immediate
feelings of the distraught family of the deceased. The conduct of the proposed
accused and the deceased, their interactions and conversations preceding the
unfortunate death of the deceased should be approached from a practical point
of view and not divorced from day-to-day realities of life. Hyperboles employed
in exchanges should not, without anything more, be glorified as an instigation to
commit suicide. It is time the investigating agencies are sensitised to the law laid
down by this Court under Section 306 so that persons are not subjected to the
abuse of process of a totally untenable prosecution. The trial courts also should
exercise great caution and circumspection and should not adopt a play it safe
syndrome by mechanically framing charges, even if the investigating agencies in
a given case have shown utter disregard for the ingredients of Section 306."
7. When the facts of the present case are analyzed in light of the
legal principles extracted hereinabove, neither any live link nor any
proximity between the acts of the petitioner and the act of
committing suicide by the deceased is discernible. The requisite
mens rea on part of the appellant is also lacking. It cannot be said
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND: 36843
that the appellant had abetted or instigated the deceased to commit
suicide and that the deceased was left with no option but to commit
suicide. This Court is of the opinion that necessary ingredients of the
offence punishable under Section 306 IPC are not made out against
the appellant.
8. The charge of Head No.2 i.e. under Section 4 read with
Section 3 of M.P. Protection of Debtors Act, 1937 does not require
interference.
9. So far as the charge Head No.1 under Section 306 of IPC r/w
Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 is concerned, in the light
of above the act attributed to the revision petitioner at the most may
fall under Section 3(1)(p) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989. For ready
reference, Section 3(1)(p) of the Act is reproduced below:-
"Institutes false, malicious or vexatious suit or criminal or other
legal proceedings against a member of a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe"
10. Accordingly, the present criminal appeal is partly allowed and
the charge of first head is set aside and the matter is remanded back
to the trial Court to consider the material available on record and
pass a fresh order whether the charge under Section 3(1)(p) or any
other charge is made out or not and pass appropriate order after
affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties.
11. The criminal appeal is disposed of in above terms. The trial
court record be sent back along with a copy of the judgment for
compliance and information.
(GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE
Vatan
