Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 661 (MP)

Vijay Tiwari v. State of M. P.

2008-05-06

B.M.GUPTA

body2008
ORDER 1. Heard. 2. This petition is for quashing the criminal proceeding pending against the petitioner in Criminal Case No. 1912/07 in the Court of CJM, Shivpuri for the offence punishable under section 306 of IPC. 3. This fact is not disputed by both the parties that one Santosh s/o Shiv Prasad Shrivastava committed suicide on 23rd October, 2007 and as per the post-mortem report dated 24th October, 2007, it is opined by the doctor that- 'In my opinion mode of death is cardio respiratory failure due to poisoning, leads to death. Duration within 24 hours since p.m. It is also admitted that one suicidal note was left by the deceased. Duration within 24 hours since p.m. It is also admitted that one suicidal note was left by the deceased. The relevant parts against the petitioner in the suicidal note are as under: ^^eq>s fot; frokjh odhy ,oa jkts’k lgxr ds dkj.k vkt ejuk iM jgk gS] esjh ekSr ds ftEesnkj iw.kZ :i ls ;s nksuksa gSa] eSa etcwj gwa esjk budk ysu&nsu gS] budks ,oa lcdks irk gS fd eSa xquk ds dke esa 20 yk[k #i;s ds ?kkVs esa gwa ,sls le; esa bUgksaus esjs nks okjaV fudky ds j[ks gSa] eSaus fo’okl esa vkdj uhjt ds pkj pSd fn;s] muds cnys esa mUgksaus eq>s vfuy [kVhd ls 2]00]000@& #i;s fnyk;sA ftlesa 50]000@& #i;s jkds’k lgxy us fy;s] og iSls tuojh esa ykSVkuk Fkk ftlds xokg jes’k vxzoky Fks] bUgksaus uhjt dk ,d pSd #i;s 2]00]000@& ckmal djkdj uksfVl Hkst fn;k ,oa nks pSd vkSj ckmal djk fn;s] 2]00]000@& #i;s ds jkds’k lgxy dk dguk gS-------frokjh vyx /kedh nsrk gS] fd eSa rqEgsa ;kno o [kVhdks ls ejok nwaxk] ,oa rqEgkjsa cPpksa dk thuk nwHkj dj nwaxkA uqdlku eSaus mBk;k ltk eSa ik jgk gwaA vius cPpksa dks Hkxoku Hkjksls NksM+ jgk gwa] Ñi;k uhjt ds pSd jkds’k ,oa frokjh us ,d ugha dbZ ?kj feVk;s gSaA 1- NksVw 2- iIiw JhokLro 3- lksyadh Bdqjiqjk 4- ‘kgtkn vkfn ;g ikap #i;s Hkh C;kt nsrs gSa dksjs pSd ysdj yksxksa dks CySdesy djrs gSaA -------------------------eSa vius gh cPpksa gh utjksa esa fxj x;k eq>s irk ugha jkds’k lgxy ,oa frokjh odhy feydj eq>s ,oa esjs cPpksa dks CySdesy djsaxsA Ñi;k U;k; fnykus dh Ñik djsaA -----------------------------eq>s ekQ dj nsuk esjs cPpksa eSa rqEgkjs lkFk thuk pkgrk Fkk] ij D;k d:a etcwj gw¡ ijlk is’kh Fkh] mlesa tekur djokuh gS dgka ls djkÅ] dksVZ] tkÅa rks ogka lgxy us tks pSd yxk j[kk mldh rkehy gks tkosxh fQj tekur djkÅ] dkSu nsxk] frokjh ,oa jkds’k lgxy ds ikl vifBr de ls de esjs 10 pSd gSa] eS u rks thrs th Lohdkj ugha dj ikÅaxk] vc D;k ‘krs± gSa] eSa rqEgs crk Hkh rks ugha ldrk ml fnu eSa vkSj ljkst frokjh th jkr dks 11%00 cts x;s FksA lgxy lkFk Fkk] frokjh dk dguk Fkk iSls olwy djus ds dbZ rjhds gSA mu rjhdksa ls eSa thrs th le>kSrk ugha dj ldrk**A It is also admitted that the witnesses Neeraj, the son of the deceased, Smt. Saroj, the widow of the deceased, and Ku. Aradhana, the daughter of the deceased, have stated in their statements recorded on 30th October, 2007 under section 161 of CrPC that on the date of incident i.e. on 23rd October, 2007, the petitioner came alongwith Rakesh Sahgal and demanded money from the deceased. When the deceased requested that he will pay the amount within a few days, both have threatened him that if the money is not paid upto the evening, he will get the dead-body of his son and his daughter will be kidnapped. Thereafter the deceased went out of the house -and after some time it is informed that he has fallen down on earth. He was admitted in the hospital where he died. It is also stated by these witnesses that prior to this incident, similar threats have been given by the aforesaid two persons to the deceased. 4. The criminal proceeding has been assailed by Shri Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner, only on the ground that vide aforequoted suicidal note and the statements of the witnesses, it appears that the deceased was indebted and he was to pay an amount of debt to the petitioner and other persons. Cases were pending in the Court in which warrants were issued against him. The petitioner simply demanded debtor the loan advanced to the deceased. Behind the aforesaid threat given to the deceased, their intention was to demand loan only. Such threat cannot be considered as abetment to commit suicide which is a material ingredient for the aforesaid offence. In support, he has drawn attention on the following orders passed by this Court in three different cases: (1) PramodKumarand anotherv. State ofM.P. [ 2007 (II) MPWN 26 ]. (2) Prakashchand v. State of M.P. [ 2007 (I) MPWN 20 ]. (3) Paramjeetsingh Chawala v. State of M.P. [2007 CriLJ 3343]. 5. Shri Bharadwaj for the respondent/State has submitted that the cause of committing suicide by the deceased is the aforesaid act of the petitioner and his co-accused. Hence, the proceeding cannot be quashed at this stage. 6. On perusal of the facts mentioned hereinabove, it appears that the deceased committed suicide and that act of the deceased has been connected with the money transaction in between the deceased and the petitioner. The provisions of section 306 IPC provides that: "306. Hence, the proceeding cannot be quashed at this stage. 6. On perusal of the facts mentioned hereinabove, it appears that the deceased committed suicide and that act of the deceased has been connected with the money transaction in between the deceased and the petitioner. The provisions of section 306 IPC provides that: "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." Another concerning provision, section 107 of IPC which deals with the definition of the abetment 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 i~legal 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 cause or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing." 7. As it appears while reading the afore-quoted provisions that for establishing the offence punishable under section 306 IPC, it requires that it is to be abetted by some one and the act of the person comes under the purview of definition of section 107 of IPC as quoted hereinabove. The act as alleged against the petitioner does not amount to instigation given by him to the deceased for committing suicide, nor it can be said that the petitioner had intentionally aided in any manner in commission of the suicide by the deceased. Simple act of demanding of loan along with a threat with regard to the payment of the same, cannot be considered as an abetment for committing suicide, as observed by this Court in the earlier order dated 7.11.2006 in the case of Prakashchand (supra) while highlighting different orders and judgments of the other Courts. 8. Simple act of demanding of loan along with a threat with regard to the payment of the same, cannot be considered as an abetment for committing suicide, as observed by this Court in the earlier order dated 7.11.2006 in the case of Prakashchand (supra) while highlighting different orders and judgments of the other Courts. 8. In view of all, criminal proceeding pending against the petitioner in aforementioned criminal case appears an abuse of the process of the Court, hence, the same is hereby quashed. Accordingly, the petition is allowed.