Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1300 (MP)

Ashish Rindey v. State of M. P.

2008-11-06

S.C.SINHO

body2008
ORDER Sinho, J. -- 1. Applicant has filed this petition under section 482 of the CrPC for quashing the charge sheet of Crime No. 134/07 of police station Kotwardi, Chhindwara for the offence registered under sections 306/34 of the IPC. 2. The factual position in essence is as follows: This fact is not disputed that deceased Prakash committed suicide on 24.2.2007 and left a suicide note. The substance of this suicide note is that deceased Prakash alleged that applicant Ashish Rinde alongwith other co-accused used to demand money forcefully and beat him, therefore, he is committing suicide. During investigation statements of Satish, Anil, Sahib Rao, Sunil and A.W. Khan were recorded by Investigating Officer. These witnesses have stated that deceased Prakash has informed them that earlier he had taken loan of Rs. 20,000/- from applicant and other co-accused and returned the amount even then applicant alongwith other co-accused used to harass, beat and say that either he should pay money or he should die. 3. The suicide note is as follows: ^^esjh ekSr dk dkj.k eSa izdk'k iokj eq>s tcjnLrh iSlk ekaxus vkSj eq>s ekjus ds dkj.k eSa viuh tku ns jgk gwaA eq>s ekjus okys dk uke :is'k pkSjfl;k & xSu cksl] 'kasDdh] cUVh] vk'kh"k] uokc fjUns vkSj Hkh pkj yksxA izdk'k iokj 24-2-2007** 4. The criminal proceeding has been assailed by Shri Vijay Nayak, counsel for the applicant on the ground that in aforesaid suicide note, deceased has not mentioned that he has returned the amount of loan to the applicant, and if applicant was simply demanding his loan/money from deceased, it cannot be considered as abetment to commit suicide which is a material ingredient for the offence under section 306 of IPC. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention to the following judgments : (1) Prakashchand v. State of M.P, 2007 (1) MPWN 20 (2) Netai Dutta v. State of WB., (2005) 2 SCC 659 (3) Vijay Tiwari v. State of M.P., 2008 (II) MPWN 118 . 5. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention to the following judgments : (1) Prakashchand v. State of M.P, 2007 (1) MPWN 20 (2) Netai Dutta v. State of WB., (2005) 2 SCC 659 (3) Vijay Tiwari v. State of M.P., 2008 (II) MPWN 118 . 5. In response, learned counsel for the State Shri J.K. Jain, submitted that the suicidal note clearly refers that applicant was forcefully and illegally demanding money from deceased and according to the statement of prosecution witnesses recorded u/s 161 of the CrPC deceased has already returned the loan amount even then applicant used to beat him and say that either he should pay the money or should commit suicide. Thus, due to these acts of the applicant and other co-accused an unfortunate step of committing suicide was taken by deceased, therefore, the petition should be dismissed. 6. In R.P Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 , the apex Court summarised some categories of cases where inherent power can and should be exercised to quash the proceedings as under: (i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance e.g. want of sanction; (ii) where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at its face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged; (iii) where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charges. 7. There are averments in the alleged suicide note that the applicant alongwith other co-accused used to beat him as well as demand money forcefully. Deceased was not supposed to give details in suicide note about loan and repayment. Deceased has specifically alleged in the suicidal note that applicant used to beat and forcefully demand money from him which is further supported by other prosecution witnesses in their statements under section 161 of the CrPC. Prima facie it is clear that present applicant had instigated the deceased to commit suicide and is responsible for abetment of suicide. An offence under section 306 IPC would stand only if there is an abetment for the commission of the crime. The parameters of the "abetment" have been stated in section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. Prima facie it is clear that present applicant had instigated the deceased to commit suicide and is responsible for abetment of suicide. An offence under section 306 IPC would stand only if there is an abetment for the commission of the crime. The parameters of the "abetment" have been stated in section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 107 says that a person abets the doing of a thing, who instigates any person to do that thing; or 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, or the person should have intentionally aided any act or illegal omission. The explanation to section 107 says that any willful misrepresentation or willful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, may also come within the contours of "abetment". 8. In the case of Netai Dutta v. State of West Bengal. (2005) 2 SCC 659 Hon'ble apex Court in para 6 held reads under: "6. In the suicide note, except referring to the name of the appellant at two places, there is no reference to any act or incidence whereby the appellant herein is alleged to have committed any willful act or omission or intentionally aided or instigated the deceased Pranab Kumar Nag in committing the act of suicide. There is no case that the appellant has prayed any part or any role in any conspiracy, which ultimately instigated or resulted in the commission of suicide by deceased Pranab Kumar Nag." Further, in the case of Vijay Tiwari (supra) and Prakashchand (supra) the act as alleged against the applicant does not amount the instigation giving by him to the deceased for committing suicide nor it can be said that the applicant had intentionally aided in any manner in commission of the suicide by the deceased. Simple act of demanding of loan cannot be considered as abetment for committing suicide particularly in the facts of this case. 9. In the suicide note there is clear and cogent reference of the act of the applicant which instigated the deceased for committing suicide. Apart from the suicide note, there are allegations against applicant in the statement of other prosecution witnesses recorded under section 161 of the CrPC that deceased has returned the loan amount to applicant. 9. In the suicide note there is clear and cogent reference of the act of the applicant which instigated the deceased for committing suicide. Apart from the suicide note, there are allegations against applicant in the statement of other prosecution witnesses recorded under section 161 of the CrPC that deceased has returned the loan amount to applicant. Suicide note of applicant clearly states that deceased was taking the extreme step because applicant used to beat and demand money forcefully. In view of suicide note and prosecution witnesses, a prima facie case under section 306/34 of IPC is made out against the applicant. [Relied on Didigam Bikshapathi and another v. State of Andlzra Pradesh, (2008) 2 SCC 403 ]. 10. In the instant case, the suicide note and statement recorded under section 161 of the CrPC of various witnesses clearly refers to the act and the role played by him. Therefore, it is not a fit case to allow this petition under section 482 of the CrPC and accordingly, it is hereby dismissed.