Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1074 (MP)

Manoj Kumar Shrivastava v. State of M. P.

2007-10-01

B.M.GUPTA

body2007
ORDER 1. During the course of arguments Shri Singhal filed copy of the FIR and typed copy of the impugned order which are taken on record. Heard finally at motion stage. 2. This petition is for impugning the order dated 22nd August, 2005, passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ashok Nagar, in Criminal Case No. 1107/05 whereby the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against the petitioners for the offence punishable under section 306/34 of IPC. 3. The facts in brief, are that, complainant Dinesh Kumar Sharma lodged one report on 1st February, 2004 that Manoj Shrivastava, Ramu Shrivastava, Anand Shrivastava, Hari Shankar, Dinbandu Panda, Daya Shankar, Brij Narayan Panda, Ram Swaroop Panda, Devendra Pujari, threaten his son Arvind Kumar Sharma, was beaten by them, he was frightened by the act of these persons. He was also threatened by these persons. He was looking perturbed, he took his meals and slept in the night. Early in the morning his dead body was found hanging from the roof. He committed suicide out of the threat given by those persons. On this report against aforementioned nine persons, Crime No. 38/04 for the offence punishable under section 306/34 of IPC was registered at Police Station, Isagarh, District Ashok Nagar. After investigation, FR. was submitted by the police. 4. On 17th August, 2005, complainant Dinesh filed objection against the FR. That objection and the final report both were considered by the learned Magistrate on 22nd August, 2005. It has been observed by the learned Magistrate that with regard to a dispute arose between petitioner Manoj Shrivstava and Ramu Shrivastava, all the petitioners were threatening his nephew Arvind Sharma, the son of the complainant Dinesh. On 13th December, 2004, again the petitioners threaten Arvind Sharma on which he was very much annoyed. He came at home, took his meals and slept in his room. In the morning, he was found hanging at the roof of the room. Thus, he committed suicide on account of threaten given by the petitioners. On these facts, the learned Judge rejected the F.R., allowed the objection of the complainant Dinesh and took cognizance against the petitioners as aforesaid vide impugned order. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order, this petition has been preferred by the petitioners. 5. Shri Singhal, the learned counsel for the petitioners has assailed the impugned order on two grounds: 1. On these facts, the learned Judge rejected the F.R., allowed the objection of the complainant Dinesh and took cognizance against the petitioners as aforesaid vide impugned order. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order, this petition has been preferred by the petitioners. 5. Shri Singhal, the learned counsel for the petitioners has assailed the impugned order on two grounds: 1. That, as per the facts of the case, if they are taken to be true, no offence under section 306 IPC is made out. 2. That, the complainant Dinesh has filed an application IA No. 14576/ 07 dated 15th September, 2007, in this Court that he is withdrawing his objections, taken against the FR in the trial Court. He has supported the petition and submitted to be allowed. In support Shri Singhal has placed reliance on the following judgments: 1. Narendra Singh and others v. State of M.P. [ 1999 (1) JLJ 232 ]. 2. Ashok Kumar Sawadiya v. State of M.P. [2001 (I) MPWN 93]. 3. Abdul Hanifv. State ofM.P. [ 2002 (II) MPWN 12 ]. 6. Shri Jain has submitted on behalf of the complainant that complainant Dinesh Kumar has submitted IA No. 14576/07 dated 15.9.2007 by which he has withdrawn his objections taken by him against FR. It is supported by his affidavit. Thus, now he also has no objection in quashing the criminal proceeding. 7. Before observing anything on merits as to whether under the facts alleged offence is prima faciely made out or not, the provision of section 306 alongwith section 107 of IPC will be required to be considered. The definition of section 306 of IPC is 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. If the suicide is committed on the abetment of a culprit then his act will be punishable under this provision. Thus, the abetment is the material ingredient for this offence. Abetment has been defined under section 107 of IPC, which goes as under: 107. Abetment of a thing. -- A person abets the doing of a thing, who -- First. If the suicide is committed on the abetment of a culprit then his act will be punishable under this provision. Thus, the abetment is the material ingredient for this offence. Abetment has been defined under section 107 of IPC, which goes 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 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 I-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. Example: A, a public officer, is authorized by a warrant from a Court of justice to apprehend Z. B, knowing that fact and also that C is not Z, wilfully represents to A that C is Z, and thereby intentionally causes A to apprehend C. Here B abets by instigation the apprehension of C. 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. Thus, it is very clear that in order to make out the offence of abetment of suicide, the necessary requirement is that the culprit has either instigated the victim to commit suicide or has engaged himself in conspiracy with other, for doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy and in order of doing that thing, or has intentionally aided, by any act or illegal omission in commission of suicide. Instigation denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or inadvisable action or to stimulate or incite. Presence of mens rea is necessary concomitant for instigation. Instigation denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or inadvisable action or to stimulate or incite. Presence of mens rea is necessary concomitant for instigation. It is clear in the aforementioned factual matrix of the case, it does not appear that the intention or the act of the petitioners were to abete the deceased to commit suicide. Unless such abetment appears against the petitioners offence under section 306 of IPC is not made out. Similarly it has been observed in the aforementioned three orders cited by Shri Singhal. 8. Consequently, there appears an abuse of the process of the Court in taking cognizance against the petitioners under section 306/34 of IPC. Hence, the petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.