Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mukesh Rathore vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 September, 2025
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22747
1 MCRC-13128-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 13128 of 2024
MUKESH RATHORE
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri D.P. Singh - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Dinesh Savita - Public Proseuctor for respondent/State.
Shri Ajay Kumar Dwivedi - Advocate for respondent No.2
Heard on : 01/09/2025
Pronounced on : 17 /09/2025
ORDER
The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashment of FIR bearing Crime No.
213/2024 registered at Police Station Guna, District Guna for the offences
punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC and all consequential
proceedings arising therefrom.
2. The petitioner is proprietor of a firm named "Sai Sagar Bioyamas Fules
Products". The deceased - father of the complainant was working as a guard in the
said firm. On 11.03.2024, the deceased was found hanging in the guard room.
Information was immediately given to the petitioner and thereafter to the
concerned police station by the co-guard on the same day at 3:09 am, upon which
inquest proceedings were conducted. Subsequently, the complainant lodged an
FIR alleging that his father was being harassed by the petitioner on account of a
money dispute; the petitioner had assaulted his father in presence of his mother
and due to continuous torture, his father committed suicide by hanging.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22747
2 MCRC-13128-2024
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the registration of FIR
against the petitioner is manifestly illegal, arbitrary and amounts to abuse of
process of law. The allegations levelled in the FIR are vague, omnibus, and bereft
of any particulars which could attract the ingredients of Section 306 IPC.
Continuation of the present criminal proceedings would only result in harassment
of the petitioner, who has been falsely implicated. The inquest report (Annexure
A/4) clearly demonstrates that it was the petitioner, along with the co-guard, who
immediately informed the concerned police station regarding the unfortunate
incident. Such conduct of the petitioner is wholly inconsistent with the theory of
abetment, and instead reflects bona fides on part of the petitioner.
4. It is further submitted that the allegation of monetary dispute is false and
concocted. The deceased was regularly receiving his salary from the petitioner,
which is evident from the salary ledger account annexed with the petition. Had
there been any dispute relating to non-payment or financial irregularities, the
deceased would not have continued in service under the petitioner. This itself
falsifies the allegation of financial harassment.
5. It is further submitted that even assuming the allegations in the FIR to be
true, there is no material to show that the petitioner had either instigated,
conspired or intentionally aided the deceased in committing suicide. There is
neither any suicide note nor any communication of the deceased implicating the
petitioner. It is a settled principle of law that mere allegation of harassment,
without a proximate act of instigation or intentional aid, does not constitute the
offence under Section 306 IPC. The investigating agency has inspected the place
of incident and collected relevant evidence. However, till date, no incriminating
material has surfaced which could even remotely connect the petitioner with the
commission of offence. The prosecution story is based on conjectures and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22747
3 MCRC-13128-2024
surmises, unsupported by independent evidence.
6. It is further submitted that the present FIR is nothing but an afterthought
and has been lodged at the behest of interested persons with an intention to falsely
implicate the petitioner. The petitioner, being owner of the firm, has maintained
cordial relations with his employees including the deceased. The entire
prosecution story is inherently improbable and does not inspire confidence.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that the FIR discloses
specific allegations that the petitioner had harassed the deceased on account of
monetary disputes and had even assaulted him in front of his wife. These
allegations, taken at face value, clearly constitute a prima facie case under Section
306 IPC. At this stage, it is not permissible for this Court to weigh the sufficiency
of evidence or test the veracity of allegations.
8. It is further submitted that the scope of interference under Section 482
Cr.P.C. is extremely limited. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v.
Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335] and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v.
State of Maharashtra [(2021) 19 SCC 401] has categorically held that FIR cannot
be quashed if the allegations, on their face, disclose commission of an offence.
The defence of the accused, or materials produced by him, cannot be looked into
at this stage. The statements of the complainant categorically point out that the
petitioner used to trouble the deceased over financial issues and had assaulted him
shortly before the incident. Whether this conduct amounts to "instigation" or
"abetment" is a matter of trial and not to be decided at the threshold. At this stage,
quashing the FIR would frustrate the process of law and deny the complainant's
family their legitimate opportunity to prove the allegations in trial. The facts
alleged are serious and require adjudication on evidence.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22747
4 MCRC-13128-2024
9. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that the complainant in his
statement has specifically alleged that the petitioner used to harass the deceased
and had assaulted him in presence of his mother. These are not vague or omnibus
allegations but are specific instances directly linking the petitioner with the
deceased's mental distress leading to suicide. The deceased was continuously
troubled by the petitioner for money-related issues. He had informed his family
about the harassment and ill-treatment by the petitioner. This shows clear
proximity between the petitioner's acts and the ultimate suicide. Whether the
harassment actually led to suicide, whether there was mens rea, and whether
ingredients of abetment are satisfied are all questions of fact which require
appreciation of evidence at trial. At this preliminary stage, the FIR cannot be
stifled by invoking Section 482. Therefore, the present petition deserves to be
dismissed at the threshold, as the allegations disclose commission of cognizable
offences.
10. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
11. The question for consideration is whether the allegations in the FIR,
taken at face value, disclose the ingredients of Section 306 IPC.
12. Sections 306 and 107 IPC are reproduced below for ready
reference:
"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.
It must be read with Section 107 of IPC which explains the meaning of
Abetment, which reads as:
107. Abetment of a thing-
A person abets the doing of a thing, who
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22747
5 MCRC-13128-2024
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.
Explanation 1.--A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by
wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose,
voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing
to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.
Explanation 2.--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."
13. Reading these sections together would indicate that there must be either
an instigation, or an engagement or intentional aid to 'doing of a thing'. When
these three criteria to Section 306 apply, it means that the accused must have
encouraged the person to commit suicide or engaged in conspiracy with others to
encourage the person to commit suicide or acted (or failed to act) intentionally to
aid the person to commit suicide.
14. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar vs. State
Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618 in Para 20 has held
as under:
"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 a fit of anger or
emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot
be said to be instigation."
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22747
6 MCRC-13128-2024
15. The ingredients under Sections 107 and 306 of the I.P.C. were
interpreted by Apex Court in Prakash and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and
Another, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3835 in the following manner:
"14. Section 306 read with Section 107 of IPC, has been interpreted,
time and again, and its principles are well-established. To attract the
offence of abetment to suicide, it is important to establish proof of
direct or indirect acts of instigation or incitement of suicide by the
accused, which must be in close proximity to the commission of
suicide by the deceased. Such instigation or incitement should reveal a
clear mens rea to abet the commission of suicide and should put the
victim in such a position that he/she would have no other option but to
commit suicide.
15. The law on abetment has been crystallised by a plethora of
decisions of this Court. Abetment involves a mental process of
instigating or intentionally aiding another person to do a particular
thing. To bring a charge under Section 306 of the IPC, the act of
abetment would require the positive act of instigating or intentionally
aiding another person to commit suicide. Without such mens rea on the
part of the accused person being apparent from the face of the record, a
charge under the aforesaid Section cannot be sustained. Abetment also
requires an active act, direct or indirect, on the part of the accused
person which left the deceased with no other option but to commit
suicide."
16. Further in the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Laxmi
Das vs. State of West Bengal and another, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC
120; in paras 8, 9 and 13, it has been held as under:
8. When Section 306 IPC is read with Section 107 IPC, it is clear that
there must be (i) direct or undefined indirect instigation; (ii) in close
proximity to the commission of suicide; along with (iii) clear mens rea
to abet the commission of suicide.
9. The Appellant has placed strong reliance upon the judgment in
Rohini Sudarshan Gangurde Vs. State of of Maharashtra,, 2024 SCC
OnLine SC 1701, wherein this Court has interpreted Sections 306 and
107 IPC together and observed:
"8. Reading these sections together would indicate that there must be
either an instigation, or an engagement or intentional aid to 'doing of a
thing'. When we apply these three criteria to Section 306, it means that
the accused must have encouraged the person to commit suicide or
engaged in conspiracy with others to encourage the person to commit
suicide or acted (or failed to act) intentionally to aid the person to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22747
7 MCRC-13128-2024
commit suicide...."
13. After carefully considering the facts and evidence recorded by the
courts below and the legal position established through statutory and
judicial pronouncements, we are of the view that there is no proximate
link between the marital dispute in the marriage of deceased with
appellant and the commission of suicide. The prosecution has failed to
collect any evidence to substantiate the allegations against the
appellant. Theundefined appellant has not played any active role or any
positive or direct act to instigate or aid the deceased in committing
suicide. Neither the statement of the complainant nor that of the
colleagues of the deceased as recorded by the Investigating Officer
during investigation suggest any kind of instigation by the appellant to
abet the commission of suicide. There is no allegation against the
appellant of suggesting the deceased to commit suicide at any time
prior to the commission of suicide by her husband."
17. Applying the above settled principles to the facts of the present case, it
would be evident that the deceased was employed as a guard in the petitioner's
firm and was regularly paid his salary. The allegations of monetary dispute stands
falsified from the salary ledger produced. The inquest report itself records that the
petitioner was among the first to inform the police about the unfortunate incident,
which is wholly inconsistent with the conduct of an abettor. There is no suicide
note, dying declaration, or communication by the deceased implicating the
petitioner. The FIR only contains omnibus allegations of harassment and a vague
assertion of an assault. No proximate act of instigation, conspiracy, or intentional
aid compelling the deceased to commit suicide has been disclosed. The allegations
in the FIR, even if taken at their face value, do not prima facie satisfy the
ingredients of abetment under Section 306 IPC as interpreted in the binding
precedents referred above. The prosecution case, therefore, rests purely on
conjectures and surmises, unsupported by independent material. Continuation of
the criminal proceedings in such circumstances would amount to abuse of the
process of law.
18. In view of above discussion, the petition deserves to be allowed.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22747
8 MCRC-13128-2024
Accordingly, the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. FIR bearing
Crime No. 213/2024 registered at Police Station Guna, District Guna for the
offences punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC and all
consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.
No order as to costs.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
ojha
