[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramavtar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:37704
1 CRR-5369-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 5369 of 2025
RAMAVTAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Vivek Singh - Senior Advocate with Shri Rajesh Yadav-
Advocate for the revision petitioner.
Shri Rahul Solanki - GA for the State.
Shri Kanishka Gupta - Advocate for the Objector.
(Heard on: 16.12.2025)
(Delivered on: 22.12.2025)
ORDER
This criminal revision under section 438 read with section 442 of the
B.N.S.S., 2023 is preferred challenging the legality of order dated
04.11.2025 in ST No.659/2025 by the 23 rd Additional Sessions Judge,
Indore (M.P.) whereby charges under section 306 of the IPC has been framed
against the revision petitioner.
2. Facts of the case in brief are that charges against the revision
petitioner is framed for abetment to commit the suicide by Shankarlal who
committed suicide at 3:30 a.m. of 31.07.2019 by hanging himself using scarf
as ligature in the room of the house. It was intimated to the Police Station-
Heera Nagar, District Indore and merg no.63/2019 was registered. During the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:37704
2 CRR-5369-2025
enquiry ligature was seized on 08.08.2019. Letter in the form of Dying
declaration was handed over by the sister of the deceased to the police and
also available the handwriting of the deceased. The statement of sister of the
deceased recorded on 03.08.2019 and additional statement was also recorded
on 08.08.2019. The statement of father of the deceased was also recorded.
P.S.- Heera Nagar, District Indore did not proceed further in the case and the
parents of the deceased approached the court of JMFC, Indore by filing an
application and vide order dated 06.02.2022 JMFC Indore ordered under
section 202 of the Cr.P.C.,1973 registered the case against the present
revision petitioner and others to file the final report within two months after
ensuring impartial enquiry/ investigation along with the material collected
during the merg enquiry No.63/2019.
3. In pursuance to the order P.S.-Heera Nagar, District-Indore
registered a crime no.123/2025 under section 306 of the IPC on 21.03.2025
at P.S.- Heera Nagar, District-Indore (Urban) against the revision petitioner.
After investigation, final report was submitted.
4. On the basis of material collected in the investigation, the aforesaid
charges has been framed which has been assailed on the ground that the
allegations against the revision petitioner is that he used to harassed the
deceased by throwing garbage in front of his house and due to this
harassment he committed suicide and this allegation through its face value is
not sufficient to frame the charges under section 306 of the IPC.
5. Heard.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the criminal revision.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:37704
3 CRR-5369-2025
7. Counsel appearing for the victim opposed the revision petition by
referring to para-18 and 19 of Praveen Pradhan Vs. State of Uttaranchal
(2012) 9 SCC 734.
8. Perused the record.
9. Before proceeding further the principles initiated in Praveen
Pradhan (Supra) is being reproduced below:-
"18. In fact, from the above discussion it is
apparent that instigation has to be gathered
from the circumstances of a particular case.
No straightjacket formula can be laid down to
find out as to whether in a particular case
there has been instigation which force the
person to commit suicide. In a particular
case, there may not be direct evidence in
regard to instigation which may have direct
nexus to suicide. Therefore, in such a case, an
inference has to be drawn from the
circumstances and it is to be determined
whether circumstances had been such which
in fact had created the situation that a person
felt totally frustrated and committed suicide.
More so, while dealing with an application
for quashing of the proceedings, a court
cannot form a firm opinion, rather a
tentative view that would evoke the
presumption referred to under Section 228
Cr.P.C.
19. Thus, the case is required to be
considered in the light of aforesaid settled
legal propositions. In the instant case, alleged
harassment had not been a casual feature,
rather remained a matter of persistent
harassment. It is not a case of a driver; or a
man having an illicit relationship with a
married woman, knowing that she also had
another paramour; and therefore, cannot be
compared to the situation of the deceased in
the instant case, who was a qualified graduate
engineer and still suffered persistent
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:37704
4 CRR-5369-2025
harassment and humiliation and additionally,
also had to endure continuous illegal
demands made by the appellant, upon non-
fulfillment of which, he would be mercilessly
harassed by the appellant for a prolonged
period of time. He had also been forced to
work continuously for a long durations in the
factory, vis-à-vis other employees which
often even entered to 16-17 hours at a stretch.
Such harassment, coupled with the utterance
of words to the effect, that, "had there been
any other person in his place, he would have
certainly committed suicide" is what makes
the present case distinct from the
aforementioned cases considering the facts
and circumstances of the present case, we do
not think it is a case which requires any
interference by this court as regards the
impugned judgment and order of the High
Court. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed
accordingly."
10. Before dealing with the rival contentions, it is appropriate to refer
to the scope of exercise of power under section 227 of the Cr.P.C or
presently section 250 of the BNSS, 2023. The Apex Court in P. Vijayan vs.
State of Kerala and another - (2010) 2 SCC 398, made an in-depth
consideration regarding the scope of power under section 227 Cr.P.C and
held thus:
"10. Before considering the merits of the
claim of both the parties, it is useful to refer
to Section 227 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, which reads as under:
"227. Discharge. -- If, upon consideration of
the record of the case and the documents
submitted therewith, and after hearing the
submissions of the accused and the
prosecution in this behalf, the Judge
considers that there is not sufficient ground
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:37704
5 CRR-5369-2025
for proceeding against the accused, he shall
discharge the accused and record his reasons
for so doing."
If two views are possible and one of them
gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished
from grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be
empowered to discharge the accused and at
this stage he is not to see whether the trial
will end in conviction or acquittal. Further,
the words "not sufficient ground for
proceeding against the accused" clearly
show that the Judge is not a mere post office
to frame the charge at the behest of the
prosecution, but has to exercise his judicial
mind to the facts of the case in order to
determine whether a case for trial has been
made out by the prosecution. In assessing this
fact, it is not necessary for the court to enter
into the pros and cons of the matter or into a
weighing and balancing of evidence and
probabilities which is really the function of
the court, after the trial starts.
11. At the stage of Section 227, the Judge has merely to
sift the evidence in order to find out whether or not
there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused. In other words, the sufficiency of ground
would take within its fold the nature of the evidence
recorded by the police or the documents produced
before the court which ex facie disclose that there are
suspicious circumstances against the accused so as to
frame a charge against him."
11. In Sajjan Kumar vs. Central Bureau of Investigation -(2010) 9
SCC 368,(2010) 9 SCC 368, the Apex Court has laid down certain
guiding principles for discharge as under:
"21. On consideration of the authorities about the scope
of Sections 227 and 228 of the Code, the following
principles emerge:
(i) The Judge while considering the question of framing
the charges under Section 227 CrPC has the undoubted
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:37704
6 CRR-5369-2025
power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited
purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case
against the accused has been made out. The test to
determine prima facie case would depend upon the facts
of each case.
(ii) Where the materials placed before the court disclose
grave suspicion against the accused which has not been
properly explained, the court will be fully justified in
framing a charge and proceeding with the trial.
(iii) The court cannot act merely as a post office or a
mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to consider the
broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the
evidence and the documents produced before the court,
any basic infirmities, etc. However, at this stage, there
cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the
matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a
trial.
(iv) If on the basis of the material on record, the court
could form an opinion that the accused might have
committed offence, it can frame the charge, though for
conviction the conclusion is required to be proved
beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has
committed the offence.
(v) At the time of framing of the charges, the probative
value of the material on record cannot be gone into but
before framing a charge the court must apply its judicial
mind on the material placed on record and must be
satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused
was possible.
(vi) At the stage of Sections 227 and 228, the court is
required to evaluate the material and documents on
record with a view to find out if the facts emerging
therefrom taken at their face value disclose the
existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged
offence. For this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it
cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all
that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is
opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of
the case.
(vii) If two views are possible and one of them gives
rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave
suspicion, the trial Judge will be empowered to
discharge the accused and at this stage, he is not to see
whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal."
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:37704
7 CRR-5369-2025
12. The position of law enunciated in the said decisions reveals that
while invoking the power under section 227 of the Cr.P.C, the judge
concerned has to consider only the record of the case and the document
produced along with the same. If on such consideration, the Court formed an
opinion that there is no sufficient ground to proceed against the accused
concerned, he shall be discharged after recording the reasons therefor. It is
also evident from the precedence on the aforesaid question that while
exercising the said power, the Court could sift the materials produced along
with the final report only for the purpose of considering the question whether
there is ground to proceed against the accused concerned.
13. The further limitation that at the stage of framing of charge or
considering the discharge application, the impermissibility of mini trial as
laid down in State of Rajasthan vs. Ashok Kumar Kashyap - 2021 SCC
OnLine SC 314 is being referred as under:
"At the stage of framing of the charge and /or
considering the discharge application, the
mini trial is not permissible."
14. In CBI vs. Aryan Singh -2023 SCC Online SC 379 also, the
same position of law has been reiterated. The relevant paragraph from the
said judgment is extracted herein below:
"Para 10 ....As per the cardinal principle of
law, at the stage of discharge and/or quashing
of the criminal proceedings, while exercising
the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the
Court is not required to conduct the mini
trial.
At the stage of discharge and/or while
exercising the powers under Section 482
Cr.P.C., the Court has a very limited
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:37704
8 CRR-5369-2025
jurisdiction and is required to consider
"whether any sufficient material is available
to proceed further against the accused
for which the accused is required to be tried
or not."
15. Now come to the facts of this case, firstly the Dying declaration
mentioned in final report and available on the record is being reproduced as
below:-
"''अगर कोई मुझे जान से मारता है या मारने क
कोिशश करता है या मेरा ए सीडे ट होता है तो
उसका ज मेदार मेरा पड़ोसी राम अवतार धावने
(मु ना) होगा जो मुझ पर गलत इ जाम लगाकर
मरवाना चाहता है य क वह मेरे घर पर कर ब
दस साल से भी अिधक समय से कचरा फकता
आ रहा है और कर ब 15-जून-2019 के आसपास
वह कचरा फकता हुआ पाया गया था और कुछ
लड़ाई भी हुई थी उससे पहले भी उसके लड़क ने
कचरा फका जो क कचरे म दवाई क शीशी और
इसके अलावा रे वे के कसी अ य य के नाम
के फाम कागज भी िमला था और उसका एक
लड़का डॉ टर है और एक रे वे म है और इस
काय म उसके करायेदार भी शािमल हो सकते ह।
और उसके इस काय म मेरे बेरवा समाज के उस
लाइन म रहने वाले लोग भी शािमल है और मेरे
समाज के कुछ व र मु खया भी उनका साथ दे ते
ह जो कई साल से हम भाई बहन क शाद म
लोग को भड़का दे ते ह जससे हमार शाद ना हो
पाए य क वे उनका साथ दे ते ह जो क और अब
सारे बजरं ग नगर के समाज वाले हमारे खलाफ
एक हो गए ह य क वह कचरा फकते हुए पाए
गए ह जो तो उसको बचाने क कोिशश क वजह
से और अ य कारण से एक हो गए ह।''
16. The statement of Maya Jinwal who is sister of deceased and is
pursuing the proceedings of this case recorded under section 180 of the
BNSS, 2023 is to the effect that:-
1. Revision petitioner resides in front of
house of the deceased situated at Bajrang
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:37704
9 CRR-5369-2025
Nagar, Indore.
2. Revision petitioner was intended to take
the possession of the house of the deceased
and
3. For that purpose he was harassing the
deceased since many years prior to committal
of the suicide.
4. To accomplish his motive revision
petitioner usually make quarrel with the
deceased and the family members.
5. He thrown the garbage including bones
and flesh in front of the house of deceased.
6. When deceased objected for these
activities then revision petitioner uses abusive
words and threatens the family of the
deceased.
7. Whenever the revision petitioner was
objected by the deceased then revision
petitioner threatens to rope in a false criminal
case.
8. Wherever the marriage proposal were
proceeded then revision petitioner's act failed
them consequently, Shankarlal ended his life
on 31.07.2019.
17. The above allegations are not a simple dispute between the two
neigbours regarding garbage in front of the house of the deceased but that act
was one of the mode in series of several acts being committed continuously
since long time. When those acts taken cumulatively with the duration of
repetition of acts and the threat of roping the deceased in a false criminal
case, the standard of "grave suspicion" regarding framing of charges under
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:37704
10 CRR-5369-2025
section 306 of the IPC is satisfied and the trial court has not committed any
illegality. Accordingly criminal revision is dismissed.
(GAJENDRA SINGH)
V. JUDGE
ajit
