Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bachan Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 January, 2025
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No.54358 of 2024
Smt. Girja Devi & Others
Vs.
State of M.P. & Others
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No.54366 of 2024
Bachan Singh
Vs.
State of M.P. & Others
APPERANCE
Shri Pallav Tripathi - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri K.K. Prajapati - Public Prosectuor for the State.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 20/12/2024
Delivered on : 9/1/2025
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This petition having been heard and reserved for orders, coming
on for pronouncement this day, the Hon'ble Shri Justice Milind
Ramesh Phadke pronounced/passed the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
[This order shall govern final disposal of M.Cr.C. No.54366 of
2024 and M.Cr.C. No.54358 of 2024.]
The present petition, under Section 482/528 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973/B.N.S.S., has been preferred by the
petitioners for quashment of F.I.R. bearing Crime No.0152 of 2024
registered at Police Station Gormi, District Bhind (M.P.) for the
offences punishable under Sections 306, 34 of the Indian Penal Code
with all consequential criminal proceedings thereto.
2. Brief facts leading to filing of the instant petition are that on
11.06.2024, deceased Mamta, wife of Bachan Singh, had committed
suicide by consuming poisonous substance on account of instigation
made by her husband as well as her in-laws as she was being mentally
and physically tortured by them. On such allegation, Merg No.31 of
2024 under Section 174 of CrPC was registered at Police Station Gormi,
District Bhind and during merg inquiry, statements of mother, father and
brother of the deceased were recorded. After completion of enquiry, an
F.I.R. vide Crime No.0152 of 2024 was registered. After completing the
investigation, challan was filed against the petitioners before the
concerned Court.
3. Challenging the impugned FIR, learned counsel for the petitioners
has submitted that the FIR has been registered without any basis, rather
the registration of FIR against the petitioners is illegal, arbitrary and
unsustainable in the eyes of law. Hence, same deserves to be quashed in
the interest of justice.
4. It was further argued that since the very provisions of Sections
107 and 306 of IPC which relate to abetment of a thing and abetment of
suicide are not attracted, the registration of crime under aforesaid
sections is per se illegal. It was argued that as for abetment of a thing
there should be some instigation to any person to do that thing or there
should be engagement of one or more other person or persons in any
conspiracy for the doing of that thing and if an act or illegal omission
takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of
that thing or the said person intentionally aided, by any of his act or
illegal omission, for doing of that thing, then only it can be said that the
person has abetted a thing and if the ingredients of Section 107 of IPC
are not fulfilled, then the provisions of Section 306 of IPC which speaks
of abetment of commission of such suicide, cannot be said to be
attracted.
5. It was further submitted that as there is no instigation on the part
of the present petitioners, therefore, no case is made out under Section
306 of IPC. Neither there is any iota of evidence about instigation
against them nor there is any ingredient of Section 107 of IPC. Dying
declaration is also not implicative to the petitioner.
6. While placing reliance in the matter of Sanju alias Sanjay Singh
Sengar Vs. State of M.P. reported in (2002) 5 SCC 371, it was argued
that the liability of an accused facing investigation and prosecution
under Section 306 of IPC in the context of Section 107 thereof was
considered and it was held that the word 'instigate' denotes incitement
or urging to do some drastic or inadvisable action or to stimulate or
incite, further holding that presence of mens rea, therefore, was a
necessary concomitant of instigation. To bolster his submission, learned
counsel had further placed reliance on judgments passed by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the matters of S.S. Chheena Vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan
reported in (2010) 12 SCC 190 and Kumar @ Shivakumar vs State
Of Karnataka passed in Cr.A.No.1427 of 2011, decided on
01.03.2024.
7. On the strength of the aforesaid arguments, it is prayed to quash
the impugned FIR along with all consequential proceedings.
8. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the
respondent/State had vehemently opposed the prayer so made by
counsel for the petitioners and while taking this Court through the case
diary wherein in specific terms, the deceased had mentioned the names
of present petitioners to have indulged in certain acts, which had caused
the deceased mental and physical harassment, thus, it was submitted
that the act of present petitioners can be said to be of instigation which
had compelled the deceased to commit suicide. It was thus prayed that
the present petition be dismissed.
9. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and perused
the documents available on record.
10. To resolve the controversy, it appears necessary first of all to have
a look on the provisions of Sections 306 and 107 of IPC. Section 306 of
IPC reads as under:-
"Section 306. 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."
11. The 'abatement' has been defined in Section 107 of the IPC, which
reads as under:-
"Section 107. 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.
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."
12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Sangarabonia Sreenu
vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in (1997) 3 SCC 214, has held
that the basis constituents of an offence under Section 306 of IPC, are
suicidal death and abetment thereof. In the matter of Pallem Daniel
Victoralions Victor Manter vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in
(1997) 1 Crimes 499 (AP), it has been held that to attract the
ingredients of abetment, the intention of the accused to aid or instigate
or abet the deceased to commit suicide is necessary.
13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M. Mohan vs. State
represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, reported in AIR
2011 SC 1238 has held as under :-
"Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person
or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a
positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in
committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The
intention of the Legislature is 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."
14. Explanation 2 of Section 108 of IPC defines that to constitute an
offence of abetment, it is not necessary that the act abetted should be
committed, or that the effect requisite to constitute the offence should
be caused.
15. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Praveen Pradhan vs. State
of Uttaranchal, reported in (2012) 9 SCC 734 has held as under:-
"17. The offence of abetment by instigation depends upon the
intention of the person who abets and not upon the act which
is done by the person who has abetted. The abetment may be
by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid as provided under
Section 107 IPC. However, the words uttered in a fit of anger
or omission without any intention cannot be termed as
instigation........''
16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh
Sengar vs. State of M.P. reported in (2002) 5 SCC 371 has held as
under :-
"6. Section 107 IPC defines abetment to mean that a person
abets the doing of a thing if he 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."
Further, in para 12 of the judgment, it is held as under:
"The word "instigate" denotes incitement or urging to do
some drastic or inadvisable action or to stimulate or incite.
Presence of mens rea, therefore, is the necessary concomitant
of instigation."
17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishori Lal vs. State of
M.P. reported in (2007) 10 SCC 797 has held in para 6 as under:-
"6. Section 107 IPC defines abetment of a thing. The offence
of abetment is a separate and distinct offence provided in IPC.
A person, abets the doing of a thing when (1) he instigates any
person to do that thing; or (2) engages with one or more other
persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing; or (3)
intentionally aids, by act or illegal omission, the doing of that
thing. These things are essential to complete abetment as a
crime. The word "instigate" literally means to provoke, incite,
urge on or bring about by persuasion to do any thing. The
abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid,
as provided in the three clauses of Section 107. Section 109
provides that if the act abetted is committed in consequence of
abetment and there is no provision for the punishment of such
abetment, then the offender is to be punished with the
punishment provided for the original offence. "Abetted" in
Section 109 means the specific offence abetted. Therefore, the
offence for the abetment of which a person is charged with the
abetment is normally linked with the proved offence."
18. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Parveen Pradhan v.
State of Uttaranchal reported in [2012 (1) JT 478], has observed that
offence of abetment by instigation depends upon the intention of the
person who abets and not upon the act which is done by the person who
has been abetted. Abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or
intentional aid as provided under section 107 of the Code. However, the
words uttered in a fit of anger or omission without any intention cannot
be termed as instigation.
19. In the matter of Neeharika Infrastructure v. State of
Maharashtra (2021) 19 SCC 401, a three-Judge Bench of Hon'ble
Supreme Court analyzed the precedent and culled out the relevant
principles that govern the law on quashing of a First Information Report
under Section 482 of the CrPC as under:-
"13. From the aforesaid decisions of this Court, right from
the decision of the Privy Council in the case of Khawaja
Nazir Ahmad (supra), the following principles of law
emerge:
13.1. Police has the statutory right and duty under the
relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure
contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into
cognizable offences;
13.2. Courts would not thwart any investigation into the
cognizable offences;
13.3. However, in cases where no cognizable offence or
offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information
report the Court will not permit an investigation to go on;
13.4. The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly
with circumspection, in the 'rarest of rare cases'. (The
rarest of rare cases standard in its application for quashing
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not to be confused with the
norm which has been formulated in the context of the death
penalty, as explained previously by this Court);
13.5. While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of
which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry
as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the
allegations made in the FIR/complaint;
13.6. Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the
initial stage;
13.7. Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception
and a rarity than an ordinary rule;
13.8. Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the
jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State
operate in two specific spheres of activities. The inherent
power of the court is, however, recognised to secure the
ends of justice or prevent the above of the process by
Section 482 Cr.P.C.
13.9. The functions of the judiciary and the police are
complementary, not overlapping;
13.10. Save in exceptional cases where non-interference
would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the
judicial process should not interfere at the stage of
investigation of offences;
13.11. Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do
not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act
according to its whims or caprice;
13.12. The first information report is not an encyclopaedia
which must disclose all facts and details relating to the
offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the
police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits
of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to
complete the investigation. It would be premature to
pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the
complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it
amounts to abuse of process of law. During or after
investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is
no substance in the application made by the complainant,
the investigating officer may file an appropriate
report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may
be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with
the known procedure;
13.13. The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide,
but conferment of wide power requires the court to be
cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the
court;
13.14. However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit,
regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the
self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly the
parameters laid down by this Court in the cases of R.P.
Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal(supra), has the jurisdiction
to quash the FIR/complaint; and
13.15. When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the
alleged accused, the court when it exercises the power
under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether or
not the allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of a
cognizable offence and is not required to consider on
merits whether the allegations make out a cognizable
offence or not and the court has to permit the investigating
agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR."
20. The parameters for quashing an FIR have been laid down by a two-
Judge Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana
v. Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 as under:-
"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 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."
21. Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as under:-
"482. Saving for inherent power of High Court â Nothing
in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent
powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be
necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to
prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to
secure the ends of justice."
22. The powers of High Court under Section 482 of CrPC are partly
administrative and partly judicial. The Hon'ble Apex Court in State of
Karnataka vs. Muniswami reported in AIR 1977 SC 1489 had held that
the section envisages three circumstances in which the inherent
jurisdiction may be exercised, namely, "to give effect to an order under
CrPC, to prevent abuse of the process of the court, and to secure the ends
of justice."
23. The jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC is discretionary. The Court
depending upon the facts of a given case, can always take note of any
miscarriage of justice and prevent the same by exercising its powers under
Section 482 of CrPC. It is true that the said powers are neither limited nor
curtailed by any other provisions of the Code, however, such inherent
powers are to be exercised sparingly and with caution.
24. It is also settled law that the inherent power under Section 482 of
CrPC has to be exercised for the ends of the justice and should not be
arbitrarily exercised to cut short the normal process of a criminal trial.
Authority of the Court exists for the advancement of justice. If any abuse
of the process leading to injustice is brought to the notice of the court,
then the Court would be justified in preventing injustice by invoking
inherent powers in absence of specific provisions in the Statute.
25. In light of the above pronouncements, for meticulous analysis of the
matter, it is necessary to look into the contents of impugned F.I.R., the
extract of which is reproduced herein below:
ज हहेक्तकत पडापकक्तक हतईक थथीक ददौरडानहेक जजचक
उककक्तक मरर्गक डडायररीक जजचक ज कथननोक कहेक आधडारक परक पथम
दृषकष्टयडाक आरनोपथीक रल
त डाबक ससजह , गररजडाक दहेवथी, बचनक ससजहक वक बज
ब हेनकन्द्रक ससजहक कहेक ववरूदधक अपरडाधक धडारडा
ज
306,34 भडादवव. कडाकससदधकपडायडाकजडानहेक सहेक जजचकररपनोष्टर्ग ज
क परकसहेक कडायमथीकककीकजडाक्तथीकहहैक जजचकपतक्तवहे दन
हसकवहेजलक हहैक पतक्तक शथीमडानक थडानडाक पभडाररीक महनोदयक थडानडाक रनोरमथीक जजलडाक सभणकडक (म 0 प 0) ववषयथडानडा
रनोरमथीककहेक मरर्गक क 0 31/24 धडारडाक174 जडा0 फदौ0 ममेंक अपरडाधकधडारडाक306,34 भडादवव. कडाकपजजथीकबदध
करनहेक ककीकअनम
त तक्तकपदडायककरनहेक बडावक्त त।कमहनोदयकतनवहेदनकहहैक कककमझ
त कउपकतनररी. मनथीरडामकनडाददरककनो
ज हहेक्तकत पडापकक्तक हतईक थथीक जजचक
मरर्गक क 0 31/24 धडारडाक 174 जडा0 फदौ0 ककीक मरर्गक डडायररीक जजचक ज कहेक ददौरडानहे
मतब क्तकडाक ममक्तडाक कहेक मडायकहेक पक्षक वपक्तडाक कहेदडारक ससजहक पतत्रक भथीकमक ससजहक नरवररयडाक उम्रक 63 सडालक भडाई
पभडाकरक ससजहक पतत्रक कहेदडारकससजहक नरवररयडाकउम्रक 33 सडालक वक मजकज कहेशवक्तथीक पतकनथीक कहेदडारकससजहक नरवररयडा
ज क पपछक्तडाछककरकपथककपथकककथनकसलयहेक रयहे , जजनकहन्होंनहे
उम्रक55 सडालकतनवडासथीकरणकगडामकबडारडाकलजकसहे
अपनहेक कथनन्होंक ममेंक बक्तडायडाककककमतब क्तकडाककडाकजहेठकरतलडाबकससजहकवकजहेठडानथीकगररजडाकदहेवथीकक्तथडाकपतक्तकबचकचन
ससजह, दहेवरकबज
ब हेनकन्द्रकससजहकआयहेकददनकमडारपथीष्टककरक्तहेकहहैक महेररीकलड़ककीकममक्तडाककनोकससरत डालकवडालहेक उककक्तकलनोर
कनोक शडाररीररकक वक मडानससकक रूपक सहेक पक्तडाडडक्तक करक्तहेक थहेक पक्तडाडनडाओक सहेक परहेशडानथीक सहेक क्तजरक आकरक महेररी
लड़ककीकममक्तडाकनहेक ददनडाजकक11.06.2024 कनोकजहररीलडाकपदडाथर्गक खडाकसलयडा, जजसककीकउसककीकमतब कयकत हनोकरई,
समकपण ज सहेक रल
प र्गक मरर्गक जजचक त डाबक ससजह, गररजडाक दहेवथीक , बचनक ससजहक वक बज
ब हेनकन्द्रक ससजहक कहेक ववरूदधक अपरडाध
धडारडाक 306,34 भडादवव. कडाक ससदधक पडायडाक जडानहेक सहेक अपरडाधक पजजथीबदधक करनहेक ककीक अनम
त तक्तक पडापकक्तक कर
अपरडाधक कडायमक करक वववहेचनडाक ममेंक सलयडाक रयडा, ददौरडानहेक वववहेचनडाक एफआईआर, नककशडाक मदौकडा, कथन,
पथी.एम. ररपनोष्टर्ग, गररफक्तडाररी, जपकक्तथी, मडाननथीयकउचकचकनकयडायडालयककहेक आदहेशककहेक पडालनकममेंक आरनोपथीरणककनो
एकक एकक लडाखक रूपयहेक कहेक मच
त लकहेक परक अगगमक जमडानक्तक परक ररहडाक ककयडाक रयडा, जपकक्तक सद
त डाक मडालक कडा
ज
डडाफष्टकक्तहैयडारककरडाकरकक्षहेत्रथीयकनकयडायडा. ववजडानकपयनोरशडालडाकगकवडासलयरकजजचकहहे ज
क्तकत भहेजडाकरयडा, जजचकररपनोष्टर्ग
अपडापकक्तकहहैक जनोकपडापकक्तकहनोनहेक परकपथककसहेक पहेशकककीकजडावहेरथी, आददकसमकपपणर्गक वववहेचनडाकसहेक आयहेक सडाककयककहे
आधडारकपरकआरनोपथीकरतलडाबकससजहक पतत्रकनडाथकत ससजहक उम्रक 60 सडाल, आरनोवपयडाकशथीमक्तथीकगररजडाकदहेवथीकपतकनथी
रतलडाबक ससजहक उम्रक 55 सडाल,आरनोपथीकवज
ब हेनकन्द्रक ससजहक पतत्रकनडाथकत ससजहक उम्रक 49 सडाल, आरनोपथीकबचनससजहक पतत्र
नडाथकत ससजहक उम्रक 57 सडालक समसकक्तक जडातक्तक नरवररयडाक तन.रणक ददौतनयडापतरडाक कहेक ववरूदधक अपरडाधक धडारडा
ज 09.08.2024 कनो
306,34 भडादववक कडाक वडाखपबबक ससदधक पडायडाक जडानहेक सहेक चडालडानक क. 149/24 ददनजकक
कक्तडाकककयडाकरयडा, जनोकनकयडायडाथर्गकसडादरकसहेवडाकममेंकपहेवषक्तकहहै।
26. On perusal of the case diary, it is apparent that there are specific
allegations against the petitioners, therefore, taking into consideration
the aforesaid law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments
cited above as well as allegations leveled against the petitioners in the
FIR as well as statement of the father, mother and brother of the
deceased, this Court finds no merits in the case as would warrant
quashing of FIR registered bearing Crime No.0152 of 2024 registered at
Police Station Gormi, District Bhind (M.P.) for the offences punishable
under Sections 306, 34 of IPC and all consequential proceedings.
27. As a result, these petitions fail and are hereby dismissed being
devoid of merits.
(Milind Ramesh Phadke)
PAWA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR
Judge
N
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF
MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR,
ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
pwn*
PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR,
2.5.4.20=b864d1ab4ace2215bfcf3ab3
01c34d631287f1b1cdd90b4a49f265f0
KUMA
2d9d593f, postalCode=474001,
st=Madhya Pradesh,
serialNumber=61B9D129971D2EA4F
D4455ED49EA436EA65E26164BEEED8
9153191C56E98CE21, cn=PAWAN
KUMAR
R
Date: 2025.01.20 18:17:09 +05'30'
