Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 816 (MP)

Virendra Rathore v. State of M. P.

2016-09-15

ANAND PATHAK

body2016
ORDER 1. The present petition under section 482 of CrPC has been preferred by the petitioner seeking quashment of the proceedings instituted through first information report registered vide Crime No.221/2015 at police station Isagarh, District Ashok Nagar. 2. As per the story of the prosecution, on 10.5.2015 an information was received in respect of death of victim-Mukesh and after marg inquiry No. 4/15, FIR was registered on 27.5.2015. On medical investigation, the cause of death was found to be suicidal in nature. The statements of the wife of the deceased and other relatives have been taken in which it was figured that the deceased Mukesh was under stress because of the loan taken by the deceased from some persons, to whom present accused is related, as they have advanced loan to the deceased and they were pressing for repayment of the said amount. Due to non-payment of the same, the accused persons, including the petitioner have mentally tortured and harassed him in respect of repayment and threatened him as well as his family members for dire consequences and, therefore, the victim succumbed due to such mental harassment and committed suicide by consuming poisonous tablets (sulphas). 3. According to the counsel for petitioner, the initial statements of the wife of deceased, namely, Devki Sharma as well as his daughter, Muskan Sharma, reveal that the name of present petitioner not at all figured in their statements, but later on case was improved against the petitioner when the statement of wife was taken on 31.5.2015. The counsel for petitioner submitted that even the prosecution witness Kamal Singh did not support the case of the prosecution against the present petitioner as he has not referred the name of petitioner in any manner in respect of advancing threats or verbal scuffle so as to reach home the allegations in respect of section 306 of IPC. He further submitted that the present petitioner has been falsely implicated and prosecution has tried to implicate him as afterthought. He was not at all involved in any manner so as to cause any instigation, threat or harassment to treat his conduct as instigation and to frame him for an offence under section 306 of IPC. On the basis of section 107 of IPC, wherein the abatement has been defined, no case for instigation is made out against the petitioner. He was not at all involved in any manner so as to cause any instigation, threat or harassment to treat his conduct as instigation and to frame him for an offence under section 306 of IPC. On the basis of section 107 of IPC, wherein the abatement has been defined, no case for instigation is made out against the petitioner. He relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and that of this Court rendered in the matter of Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of M.P. [ 2002(2) JLJ 275 = AIR 2002 SC 1998 ], Ram Naresh and another v. State of M.P. and others [ 2002 (2) MPHT 183 ], Rajesh Shivhare v. State of M.P. [2004(4) MPHT 7], Vishnu Prasad v. State of M.P. [ 2005(II) MPWN 112 =2005 CrLR (MP) 650], Devendra Singh v. State of M.P. [ 2007(III) MPWN 95 = 2007(3) MPHT 247 ], Ramchandra v. State of M.P. [ 2009(I) MPWN 77 =2009(1) MPLU (Cri.) 172]. 4. On behalf of respondent No.2/complainant nobody turned up for assistance despite service. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1/State Shri Chauhan, submitted that the wife of the deceased Devki Sharma in her statement made on 31.5.2015 categorically mentioned the name of present petitioner as one of the persons, who have mentally harassed the deceased for repayment of loan and on 7.5.2015 visited the hotel of the deceased and threatened him for dire consequences and, therefore, the conduct of the present petitioner suggests his role in respect of instigation and subsequently the suicide committed by the victim. He further craves the indulgence of this Court over the affidavit dated 1.6.2015 executed by the wife of the deceased, wherein she has categorically referred the name of the present petitioner. He further submitted that the statement of the prosecution witness Kamal Singh also refer the name of present petitioner in respect of the incident, wherein the petitioner allegedly visited the house of the deceased and threatened the wife of the deceased. 6. According to the counsel for prosecution, overall circumstances and statements made by the witnesses during investigation prima facie indicate the role of the petitioner and it is too early to conclude about the alleged innocence of the petitioner. 7. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. Petitioner through this petition seeks quashment of proceedings pursuant to registration of FIR. 7. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. Petitioner through this petition seeks quashment of proceedings pursuant to registration of FIR. At this juncture, no case for interference is made out as the case after investigation is before the competent criminal Court for trial and no case for interference under extraordinary jurisdiction under section 482 CrPC is made out. 9. On 31.5.2015, wife of deceased namely Devki Sharma has categorically mentioned the name of present petitioner as one of the persons who have mentally harassed her husband for repayment of loan. Similarly, on 1.6.2015, she submitted an affidavit, wherein, she has categorically named the present petitioner. In his statement, prosecution witness Kamal Singh also referred the name of present petitioner. The jurisdiction under section 482 CrPC can only be invoked under the exceptional circumstances wherein the bare reading of FIR does not involve person concerned in any commission of offence. It is well settled in law that jurisdiction under section 482 CrPC has to be sparingly used in exceptional circumstances. Present case does not fall under such exceptional case; wherein, indulgence can be shown for quashment of proceedings. The grounds raised by the petitioner can be good grounds for defence but certainly not good grounds for quashment of proceedings, at this stage. 10. The judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable because of factual differentiation. The judgment as cited by learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar (supra), moves in different factual realm; wherein, appellant/accused was guilty of using abusive language; whereas, in the present case the petitioner is facing the allegation of mental harassment for repayment of loan. Here; the widow of victim has categorically stated the name of petitioner in her statement and affidavit. Similarly, all other cases as relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are in respect of revisional jurisdiction of the Court; whereby, the charge of section 306 of IPC has been framed against the accused persons in these cases. In the present case the petitioner is seeking quashment of whole proceedings under jurisdiction of section 482 CrPC. As submitted earlier, this is not such an exceptional case where indulgence can be shown and proceedings can be quashed. Resultantly, petition under section 482 of CrPC fails and is hereby dismissed. In the present case the petitioner is seeking quashment of whole proceedings under jurisdiction of section 482 CrPC. As submitted earlier, this is not such an exceptional case where indulgence can be shown and proceedings can be quashed. Resultantly, petition under section 482 of CrPC fails and is hereby dismissed. S. S. Rajput for petitioner; G. S. Chauhan, Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1/State.