Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 284 (MP)

Anshul Pandey v. State of M. P.

2019-04-03

HULUVADI G.RAMESH

body2019
ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This petition has been filed under section 482 of CrPC against the order dated 12.4.2018 passed by Sessions Judge, Seoni in S.T. No. 28/2018, whereby the charges under section 306, 498A of IPC have been framed against the present petitioner. 3. It appears that the charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner for the offences punishable under sections 306, 498A and 201 of the IPC and the charges under sections 306 and 498A of the IPC have been framed by the trial Court. Against the order of framing of charge, this petition under section 482 of CrPC has been filed seeking quashment of the impugned order. 4. It is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that even before marriage, deceased Diksha Pandey was in love-affair with one Amit Sinha while she was in the hostel and the same continued even after her marriage. However, the marriage of the petitioner has taken place with deceased Diksha Pandey. Thereafter, it appears that she committed suicide due to harassment and cruel treatment meted out to her by the petitioner. The charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased. It has been submitted that the prosecution of the petitioner is an abuse of process of law. The trial Court did not take into consideration that there was love affair of the deceased with Amit Sinha which continued even after marriage. When the petitioner got knowledge about this, he warned the deceased to stop this relation and it does not necessarily amount to harassment or abetment to commit suicide. It is also submitted that as per the statement of Amit Sinha, he clearly admitted his affairs with Diksha Pandey but the trial Court did not consider it before framing of charge. The petitioner cannot be prosecuted under section 306 of the IPC for abetment of suicide. 5. Learned Government Advocate read over the dying declaration and submitted that the petitioner has caused mental harassment to the deceased and she prayed to excuse her and on account of mental harassment caused by the petitioner, the deceased committed suicide. 6. It is a fit case for offence under section 306 of IPC and impugned order of framing charge does not require any interference by this Court. 6. It is a fit case for offence under section 306 of IPC and impugned order of framing charge does not require any interference by this Court. He prays that the petition may be dismissed. It appears that there was love affairs of the deceased with Amit Sinha even after her marriage and when the petitioner warned the deceased about the illicit relation of her with Amit Sinha, the deceased being very sensitive committed suicide. The petitioner cannot be held to be responsible for having abetted the commission of suicide and though it is case for trial, but the fact remains that when a person had illicit relations with the deceased, whose statement has also been recorded by the prosecution and that is very much available in the record, the husband would naturally object it and warn his wife to stop it. The trial Court should have taken into consideration this aspect before framing of charge under section 306 of the IPC as the conduct of the husband would not amount to abetment to commit suicide by the deceased. However, it depends upon the facts and situation of each case. The deceased seems to be very sensitive. The abetment cannot be attributed to the petitioner. 7. The apex Court in the case of Amalendu Pal v. State of W.B., reported in (2010) 1 SCC 707 has held as under : "10. The legal position as regards sections 306 IPC which is long settled was recently reiterated by this Court in the case of Randhir Singh v. State of Punjab (2004) 13 SCC 129 as follows in paras 12 and 13: 12. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding that person in doing of a thing. In cases of conspiracy also it would involve that mental process of entering into conspiracy for the doing of that thing. More active role which can be described as instigating or aiding the doing of a thing is required before a person can be said to be abetting the commission of offence under section 306 IPC. 13. In cases of conspiracy also it would involve that mental process of entering into conspiracy for the doing of that thing. More active role which can be described as instigating or aiding the doing of a thing is required before a person can be said to be abetting the commission of offence under section 306 IPC. 13. In State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal this Court has observed that the Courts should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end the life by committing suicide. If it transpires to the Court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the Court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty." 8. Considering the aforesaid, the order of framing charge under section 306 of the IPC against the petitioner is hereby quashed. However, the charge framed under section 498A of the IPC will remain intact and the petitioner has to face trial for the said offence. Accordingly, this petition stands partly allowed.