Madhya Pradesh High Court

Smt. Kiran Ashware vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 June, 2025

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:28407

1 CRR-5486-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA
ON THE 26th OF JUNE, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 5486 of 2024
RAMSWAROOP THAKUR AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Mr. Ashish Kumar Kurmi - Advocate for applicant.
Mr. Yogendra Das Yadav - Government Advocate for State.
WITH
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 38143 of 2024
SMT. KIRAN ASHWARE
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Mr. Ghanshyam Sharma - Advocate for applicant.
Mr. Yogendra Das Yadav - Government Advocate for State.

ORDER

Revision Petition No.5486 of 2024 has been preferred being aggrieved with the order dated 03.09.2024 of framing the charge against the applicants under Section 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code passed by First Additional Sessions Judge Narmadapuram, District-Narmadapuram (M.P.).

2. M.Cr.C. No.38143 of 2024 has been preferred by Smt. Kiran Ashware for quashing of the charge-sheet registered at Police Station-Dehat Hoshangabad, District-Narmadapuram vide Crime No.44 of 2024 for an

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:28407

2 CRR-5486-2024 offence punishable under Sections 306, 34 of the Indian Penal Code as well as for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings of S.T. No.51 of 2024 pending before the First Additional Sessions Judge, Narmadapuram against this applicant.

3. Facts giving rise to these petitions are arising out of the same incident, hence, both the cases are being decided simultaneously by a common order.

4. In nutshell, prosecution case against the applicants is that on 21.01.2024 at 20:30 pm, deceased Sanjay Singh Uikey, s/o Radheshyam Uikey, aged about-42 years, R/o Saidarshan City, Harda Bypass Road Narmadapuram, committed suicide by hanging. On searched from his house,

a note-book was found in which, the deceased has written a suicide note that "he is leaving this world and Ramswaroop Thakur, Manisha Thakur, Kiran Ashware, Tarun Kumar, Sahil Thakur are liable for this and also wrote that you live happily, delete his calls of last time approached. The property be given to his son not to his wife as Manisha is very wrong lady and like such.

"

5. After death, post-mortem was conducted. Dead body was handed over to family members. During marg enquiry, it was found that Manisha the wife of deceased. Frequently, dispute used to happen between them. On 21.01.2024 at 09:00 pm, the deceased went to the parental home of his wife to call his wife Manisha. A quarrel also took place there and it has been stated that due to torture and harassment of Manisha, his brother-in-law Ramswaroop Thakur and friend of Manisha namely Kiran Ashware, sons of

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:28407

3 CRR-5486-2024 Ramswaroop Thakur namely Tarun and Sahil Thakur, the deceased has committed suicide.

6. A suicide note was recovered and sent for handwriting expert and as per report annexed with the charge-sheet, the handwriting of the suicide note matches with the handwriting of the deceased.

7. Statement of his mother recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which his mother Gyarsi Bai, w/o Radheshyam Uikey has stated that deceased Sanjay was her youngest son and he was working in BSF. During service, he solemnized love marriage with Manisha and from their wedlock, son Sachin was born, who is aged about-15 years. After marriage, the deceased rarely visit the parental home and when he came to the house of his parents, informed them that Manisha used to quarrel with him and also used to harass him. Sanjay was consuming alcohol and there was dispute on that point from his wife and occasionally on the trivial matters.

8. Deceased informed to his family members that Manisha, her brother Ramswaroop, Ramswaroop's sons Tarun and Sahil, Kiran Ashware frequently make quarrel with him and due to that ill treatment, on 21.01.2024, deceased committed suicide by hanging.

9. Ajay, s/o Radheshyam, Anita, w/o Sunderlal, sister of the deceased, Sachin Uikey, son of the deceased have also supported that there was a quarrel between the deceased and his wife. On that basis, the case was registered.

10. Mr. Ashish Kumar Kurmi, learned counsel for the applicants has

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:28407

4 CRR-5486-2024 submitted that if there is any dispute between the deceased and his wife and with her brothers as reason was that the deceased was a habitual drinker and they can never think that the deceased will commit suicide nor they were having any intention that by that act, they are abetting the suicide. If there was a quarrel by the both sides and the quarrel and cruelty itself does not constitute offence of abetting the suicide. There must be mens rea and ingredients of Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code must be fulfilled.

11. In this case, neither Kiran nor her brothers have instigated or aided or conspired with anyone or with the deceased so that, he committed suicide and learned counsel for the applicants have relied on the judgment of the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court order passed in Ajay Singh Vs. State of M.P. Criminal Case No.39566 of 2022 order dated 03.03.2023 and also relied on the judgment of Mohit Singhal and Anr. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Ors. passed by the Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.3578 of 2023 dated 01.12.2023.

12. Mr. Ghanshyam Sharma has also supported the arguments of Mr. Ashish Kumar Kurmi and has submitted that no case against the applicant is made out.

13. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that suicide note was recovered from the possession of the deceased and handwriting of the suicide note clearly matched with the handwriting of the deceased and in that suicide note, the deceased has clearly stated that Manisha and her brother Ramswaroop and his sons Sahil Thakur and Tarun Thakur along with the other co-accused persons were harassing him, assaulting him and being left

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:28407

5 CRR-5486-2024 no option, deceased has committed suicide, hence, no case for interference is made out. The trial Court has rightly framed the charges under Section 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code and there is no ground to quash the charge- sheet and other criminal proceedings and cognizance taken by the trial Court against Kiran.

14. Heard the parties, perused the record.

15. As stated above in the suicide note, it was written by the deceased in note-book, that for his suicide, Ramswaroop Thakur, Manisha Thakur, Kiran Ashware, Tarun Thakur, Sahil Thakur are liable.

16. From the statements of the witnesses, it is clear that the deceased solemnized love marriage with Manisha and there were frequent dispute between husband and wife. It has also come on record that the deceased was consuming alcohol and the quarrel was also happening on that point. On 21.01.2024 at 09:00 pm, the deceased went to her wife's parental home and there also dispute took place except this, nothing has been brought on the record.

17. In the case of Arti Arya Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 2008(1)MPHT 483, this Court while dealing with the case of same nature has held that to constitute the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, firstly, the ingredients of offence under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code be fulfilled and charge of an offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is not sustainable merely on the allegation of harassment to the deceased, particularly, when ingredients of abetment are not attracted on the statements of deceased or witnesses.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:28407

6 CRR-5486-2024

18. In the case of Mohit Singhal (Supra), the Apex Court in paragraph nos.10 and 11 has held as under:-

"10. In the present case, taking the complaint of the third respondent and the contents of the suicide note as correct, it is impossible to conclude that the appellants instigated the deceased to commit suicide by demanding the payment of the amount borrowed by the third respondent from her husband by using abusive language and by assaulting him by a belt for that purpose. The said incident allegedly happened more than two weeks before the date of suicide. There is no allegation that any act was done by the appellants in the close proximity to the date of suicide. By no stretch of the imagination, the alleged acts of the appellants can amount to instigation to commit suicide. The deceased has blamed the third respondent for landing in trouble due to her bad habits.

11. Therefore, in our considered view, the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC was not made out against the appellants.

                                          Therefore,    the        continuation   of   their






          NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:28407




                                                              7                              CRR-5486-2024
                                           prosecution will be nothing but an abuse of
                                           the process of law."

19. In the case of Ajay Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (supra) has discussed the case laws of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2002)5 SCC 371, Parveen Pradhan Vs. State of Uttarakhand 2012(1) JT 478, Chitresh Kumar Chopra Vs. State of NCT Delhi (2009) 16 SCC 605, State of West Bengal Vs. Orilal Jaiswal 1994(1) SCC 73, Kishori Lal Vs. State of M.P. (2007)10 SCC 797, Gangula Mohan Reddy Vs. State of A.P. (2010) 1 SCC 750, Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu Vs. State of West Bengal (2010) 1 SCC 707 and citing the other case laws has held that to constitute the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, the ingredients of Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code must be fulfilled and also held that word "instigate" may be inferred by such act or omissions or by a continuous course of conduct created such a circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide. The instigation or abetment is compulsory and when, the facts are not of such, only on the allegation that the applicants harassed the deceased and after that the deceased committed suicide, the applicants cannot be prosecuted for abetment to suicide.

20. Looking to this legal position, in this case, against applicants Ramswaroop, Sahil and Kiran, it has not been brought on record that they were having any motive to create such a situation that the deceased commit suicide. From the statements of prosecution witnesses itself it is clear that the

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:28407

8 CRR-5486-2024 deceased was constantly consuming the alcohol and the dispute was regarding that of and other family matters and just before the incident, on 21.01.2024, it has not been brought that the any serious type of assault was committed and the applicants put him in such a situation that deceased left with no option but to commit suicide.

21. On these circumstances, the applicants could not be held liable for abetment of suicide, hence, the applicants Ramswaroop and Sahil are discharged from the offence punishable under Section 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code and are acquitted from the charges and the order dated 03.09.2024 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge Narmadapuram is hereby quashed.

22. Charge-sheet filed against applicant Kiran vide Crime No.44 of 2024 for an offence punishable under Sections 306 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station-Dehat Hoshangabad, District- Narmadapuram as well as entire criminal proceedings of S.T. No.51 of 2024 pending before the First Additional Sessions Judge, Narmadapuram against this applicant is hereby quashed and the applicant is discharged from the offence punishable under Section 306 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code.