Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 405 (MP)

REETESH @ SHERU v. STATE OF M. P.

2010-04-06

K.S.CHAUHAN

body2010
JUDGMENT : 1. This criminal revision under section 397 read with section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred being aggrieved by the order dated 5-11-2009 passed by 17th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in S. T. No. 358/2009 whereby the charge under section 306 of Indian Penal Code has been framed against the applicant. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 12-9-2008 at about 5:15 PM Saroj informed the Police Station Hanumantal that her sister Ranu @ Rakhi Patel aged about 20 years has committed suicide by hanging herself in the house. Marg Intimation No. 29/08 was registered. Enquiry was made. On the basis of suicide note and the statements of the parents and sister of the deceased it was found that Ranu @ Rakhi Patel has committed suicide on account of being harassed by applicant Reetesh @ Sheru and offence under section 306 of Indian Penal Code was registered. After investigation the charge-sheet was filed in the competent Court, who committed this case to the Sessions Court for trial. The Sessions Judge has framed charge under section 306 of Indian Penal Code against the applicant. Being aggrieved by the impugned order of framing of charge, the instant revision has been preferred. 3. Shri A. K. Jain, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that no offence under section 306 of Indian Penal Code is made out. Harassment does not come under abetment, therefore the Court below has committed an illegality in framing the charge under section 306 of Indian Penal Code against the applicant, which deserves to be set aside and the applicant is entitled to be discharged. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the following decisions :- (i) Netai Dutta vs. State of WB, 2005 SCC (Cri) 543, (ii) Sohan Raj Sharma vs. State of Haryana, (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 387, (iii) Kailashi Bai vs. Aarti Arya and another, (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1117, (iv) Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar vs. State of M. P., 2002 SCC (Cri) 1141, (v) Vedprakash Tarachand Bhaiji vs. State of M. P., 1995 MPLJ 458 , (vi) RamNaresh vs. State of M. P., 2002(2) MPLJ 360 , (vii) Ashish Saxena vs. State of M. P., 2002(3) MPLJ 602, (viii) Mangleshwar Singh vs. State of M. P., 2003(2) MPLJ 44 , (ix) Prabhudayal Ahirwar vs. State of M. P., 2003(3) MPLJ 88 . He has also placed reliance on the followings orders : (i) Cr. R. No. 704/1997, Gopal and 2 others vs. State of M. P. decided on 21-6-2000, (ii) Cr. R. No. 11195/2003, Sheikh Lal and others vs. State of M. P., decided on 2-12-2003, (iii) MCRC No. 3974/2000, Pursottam vs. State of M. P. decided on 2-8-2000, (iv) MCRC No. 1632/2000, Abdul Hanif vs. State of M. P. (v) Cr. R. No. 1102/2004, Virendra Kumar Jain vs. State of M. P. decided on 16-8-2004, (vi) Cr. R. No. 857/2006, Harish Chandra vs. State of M. P. decided on 2-11-2006. 4. On the contrary, Shri R. P. Tiwari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State supported the impugned order mainy lcontending that there is sufficient evidence against this applicant regarding harassment due to which Ranu @ Rakhi Patel committed suicide, hence trial Court has rightly framed the charge under section 306 of Indian Penal Code. 5. The main point for consideration in this revision is that whether the Court below has committed any illegality in framing the charge against the applicant under section 306 of Indian Penal Code? 6. On perusal of the suicide note it reflects that this applicant used to harass Ranu @ Rakhi Patel on account of which she committed suicide. There is evidence of Kanchan and Saroj that Ranu @ Rakhi Patel told them in her lifetime that the applicant harasses her, therefore they had gone to make complaint to his mother who assured not to do such thing. There is evidence of her parents that this applicant used to harass their daughter on account of which she committed suicide. Thus there is ample evidence that on account of being harassed by this applicant, Ranu @ Rakhi Patel committed suicide. 7. In the case of Netai Dutta (supra) there was no averment in the alleged suicide note that the appellant had caused any harm to him or was in any way responsible for delay in paying the salary to deceased Pranav Kumar Nag. Hewas dissatisfied with the working condition at the work place. He did not join the duty till two years and committed suicide on 16-2-2001. 8. Hewas dissatisfied with the working condition at the work place. He did not join the duty till two years and committed suicide on 16-2-2001. 8. In the case of Sohan Raj Sharma (supra) in suicidal note the deceased alleged that her husband was impotent and sexual pervert who behaved like an animal and he was trying to defame her for having a sexual relationship with other women and that she wanted to kill him but she tolerated the insulting manner in which he behaved. This is the case wherein the evidence has been appreciated and offence under section 306 of Indian Penal Code has not been found proved. 9. In the case of Kailashi Bai (supra) appellant wife who belonged to higher caste used to harass the deceased-husband who belonged to lower caste and was working as Civil Judge. It was held that the High Court rightly appreciated the material on record before quashing the complaint. 10. In the case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar (supra) it was found that suicide was not proximate cause of quarrel though appellant was named in suicide note. 11. In the case of Vedprakash Tarachand Bhaiji (supra) the applicants asked the deceased to pay and return the loan amount. It was held that no case for alleged commission of offence was made out. 12. In the case of Ram Naresh (supra) the allegations were torturing the deceased for not repaying the loan amount. Proceedings were quashed under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code. 13. In the case of Ashish Saxena (supra) there was allegation that the applicant harassed or tortured the deceased, but there was no allegation that he instigated the commission of suicide. 14. In the case of Dr. Mangleshwar Singh (supra) the allegations were of committing theft by Hiralal. He was beaten and threatened. He committed suicide. It was not found that the applicant instigated the commission of suicide. 15. In the case of Prabhudayal (supra) it has been held that mens rea is necessary concomitant of instigation. Deceased did not commit suicide as a direct result of quarrel with the accused. 16. In the referred orders also, the offence under section 306 of Indian Penal Code has not been found established. 17. We have to consider whether in the light of aforesaid decisions this applicant deserves to be discharged from the offence under section 306 of Indian Penal Code. 18. 16. In the referred orders also, the offence under section 306 of Indian Penal Code has not been found established. 17. We have to consider whether in the light of aforesaid decisions this applicant deserves to be discharged from the offence under section 306 of Indian Penal Code. 18. Each and every case depends upon its own peculiar facts and circumstances. So far as present case is concerned, there is sufficient evidence to show that this applicant used to harass Ranu and Rakhi Patel on account of which she committed suicide. No meticulous examination of the material is required to be done at the stage of framing of charge. The charge may be framed even on the basis of grave suspicion. At this stage there is no necessity of formulating opinion about prospects of conviction. It is not expected to go deep into the probative value on the material on record. 19. Thus from the foregoing discussions I am of the view that the Court below has not committed any illegality in framing the charge under section 306 of Indian Penal Code against the applicant, hence no interference is called for. This revision is meritless and deserves to be dismissed. 20. Consequently, this criminal revision fails and is hereby dismissed. The stay order granted by this Court on 17-12-2009 is hereby vacated.