Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1044 (MP)

Anil Jain v. State of M. P.

2016-11-18

JARAT KUMAR JAIN

body2016
ORDER 1. This revision under section 397 read with section 401 of the CrPC has been filed against the order dated 13.4.2016 passed by learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Rajgarh in S.T. No.505/2015 whereby framed the charge under section 306/34 of the IPC against the applicants. 2. As per prosecution case, deceased Siddharth @ Siddhanath was running a Call-Center at Rajgarh in the name of “Hanuman Chalisa” which was operated as per the instructions and guidance received from the applicants viz. Anil Jain and Smt.Afrin Khan. On 16.5.2015 deceased committed suicide by hanging. Merg No.19/2015 was registered at Police Station Kotwali, Rajgarh. An inquiry was made and a suicidal note was recovered. As per suicidal note, applicants had assured the deceased that they will provide him financial assistance. On their assurance deceased had taken loan from different persons. After repeated demands, applicants had not provided him money. Resultantly, under pressure, deceased committed suicide. On the basis of inquiry report, Crime No.234/2015 for the offence under section 306/34 of the IPC has been registered against the applicants. After investigation, final report has been filed. 3. Considering the material on record, learned ASJ by the impugned order framed the charge against the applicants for the offence under section 306/34 of the IPC. Being aggrieved, applicants have filed this revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants never met or made any conversation with the deceased personally or telephonically. The prosecution has not produced any evidence that the applicants would provide financial assistance to the deceased for opening the Call-Center at Rajgarh. Even in the suicidal note, there is no allegation that the applicants used to harass the deceased physically or mentally. There is no evidence to presume that the applicants have abated or instigated the deceased to commit suicide. Hence, there is no material for framing the charge against the applicants under section 306 of the IPC. For this purpose, he placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Babbi @ Jitendra v. State of M.P. [ 2008(III) MPWN 8 = 2008(2) MPHT 160 ]; and Surendra Pathak v. State of M.P. [2016(1) MPLJ (Cri.) 342]. 5. On the other hand, learned Deputy Government Advocate supports the impugned order and submits that at the time of framing of charge, minute scrutiny is not required. 5. On the other hand, learned Deputy Government Advocate supports the impugned order and submits that at the time of framing of charge, minute scrutiny is not required. Even if there is a grave suspicion then the Court can frame the charge. Hence, no interference is called for. Hence, the revision is liable to be dismissed. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the final report. The prosecution case depends on the suicidal note. Even if there is a grave suspicion then the Court can frame the charge. Hence, no interference is called for. Hence, the revision is liable to be dismissed. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the final report. The prosecution case depends on the suicidal note. The relevant portion of suicidal note reads as under: ^^fM;j ikik esa vkidk liuk iwjk ugha dj ik;k eq>sa Iyht ekQ dj nsuk ikik eSaus iwjh dksf'k'k fd ysfdu eq>s yksxks us ,slk my>k;k dh esa lqy> ugha ik jgk gw¡ ikik vkSj eEeh esa vki nksuksa ls cgqr I;kj djrk gw¡ nqfu;k esa gj csVs dks vkids tSls ek¡ cki ns vkSj fdlh Hkh ek¡ cki dks esjs tSls csVk ugha ns Hkxoku tks vius ek¡ cki dh bPNk iwjk uk dj ldsA ikik esjs ikl blds vykok vkSj dksbZ jkLrk ugha Fkk eSaus cgqr dksf'k'k dh fd vkidk uke jks'ku d:¡ blhfy, jktx<+ vk;k Fkk vkidk liuk iwjk djus ds fy, vkSj ;s vkWfQl Mkyk eSaus rkfd esjs ikik dk liuk iwjk gks ysfdu eSa dqN ugha dj ik;k ik;k D;ksafd vQjhu esMe vkSj vfuy lj ds flLVe us eq>s ikxy dj fn;k mu yksxksa us esjs [kwu esa mudk flLVe Hkj fn;k bl rjg dh bl flLVe ds }kjk eSa vkidk liuk t:j iwjk d:¡xk ysfdu esjs lkFk /kks[kk gqvk ikik eSa viuh utj eas fxj x;k esjh 'kknh esa Hkh lHkh yksxks us eq>ls cksyk dh rw mnkl D;ksa gSA Hkyk esa D;k djrk ikik vkius esjs fy, bruk fd;k fd dksbZ Hkh cki vius csVs ds fy, ugha djrkA ij {kek ikik eSa Hkh etcwj g¡wA vkSj egs'k ds fy, dksbZ nqdku dh O;oLFkk dj ds mls fcBk nks rkfd vkxs py dj oks ?kj dks lEHkky ysA vQjhu esMe vkSj vfuy lj dh otg ls esjk iwjk dfj;j cckZn gks x;k eSa ,e-ch-,- dh fMxzh iwjh ugha dj ik;k D;ksafd bu yksxks us eq>s cMs+&cMs+ lius fn[kk, dh [kqn dk vkWfQl gksus ds ckn vkneh cgqr iSlk okyk cu ldrk gS cfYd ,slk dqN ugha gqvk {kek ikik] eq>s ekQ dj nsukA** ^^---------- eksnh th ls Hkh esjk fouez fuosnu gS fd feLVj vfuy tSu vkSj vQfju ese nksuksa ls feykdj esjs ikik eEeh dks 3]00]000@& #i;s dh jkf'k uxn fnyokbZ tk, D;ksafd esjh ekSr ds ftEesnkj ;s nksuks gSaA ;fn ;s iSls nsus ls bUdkj djrs gS rks bUgsa mez dSn dh ltk nh tk, D;ksafd bu yksxks us vius LokFkZ ds fy, nks ek¡&cki ls viuh vkSykn Nhuh gSA bUgksaus eq>s cgyk&Qqlykdj esjk vkWfQl Myok;k ugha rks eSa bUnkSj esa gh vPNh tkWc dj jgk FkkA eSaus 8 fnlEcj dks vkWfQl ys fy;k Fkk ftldk vHkh rd vkt rd gj ,d #i;s esjh tsc ls ns jgk gw¡A bu yksxks us eq>s igys rks 600 ij Mu dk cksyk vkSj 400 ds fglkc ls vQfju ese us dkmaV djds tuojh o Qjojh nks eghus dk eq>s 10]000 $ 4]000 #i;s fn, vHkh rd igys vQfju ese us vkWfQl dk fdjk;k o pk; ikuh dk rd nsus Hkh cksyk Fkk ijarq ckn esa ugha fn;kA eSa Hkh dc rd bl vkWfQl dks tsc ls pykrk eSa Fkd x;k] iSls ns ns dj esjs bl vkWfQl esa vHkh rd dbZ #i;s [kpZ gks x, ftldh ftEesnkj vQfju ese gSaA eksnh th vkils esjh fuosnu gSaA Iyht esjs eEeh ikik us mudh thou Hkj dh dekbZ esjs Åij yxk nhA rks vki bu yksxks ls ikik dks 'kh?kz iSls fnyok,a eSa vkidk vglkuean jgwaxkA** 7. From bare reading of the facts, it cannot be presumed that the applicants have physically or mentally harassed the deceased. On the assurance of applicants, deceased had taken loan from different persons. It seems that the applicant had assured the deceased for financial assistance, however, they have not provided the same, therefore, out of frustration, deceased has committed suicide. If the applicants refused to provide financial assistance to the deceased, it cannot be presumed that the accused have goaded or provoked, incited or urged or encouraged the deceased to commit suicide. From the facts it cannot be inferred that the applicants have intended that the deceased should commit suicide. 8. In view of the above discussion I am of the view that there is no material on record to presume that the applicants have committed offence under section 306 of the IPC. Hence, learned ASJ has committed an error in framing the charge under section 306 of the IPC against the applicants. 9. Accordingly, this revision is allowed and the impugned order dated 13.4.2016 framing charge against the applicants under section 306 of IPC is hereby set aside. The applicants are discharge from the charge under section 306 of the IPC. Their bail-bonds also stand discharged. 10. Let a copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for information and compliance.