Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1008 (MP)

Sharad v. State of M. P.

2023-12-18

ANIL VERMA

body2023
ORDER 1. Petitioner has preferred this criminal revision under section 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 15.5.2023 passed in S.T. No.58/2023, whereby the charge under section 306 read with section 34 of IPC has been framed against the petitioner. 2. As per the prosecution story, complainant lodged an FIR at P.S. Jeevajiganj, Ujjain on 17.8.2020 by stating that his son Akash was having some financial transaction with the petitioner/accused prior to the incident. On 16.8.2020 present petitioner mentally and physically harassed the deceased for non payment of his money, due to which on 17.8.2020 in the morning time Akash has committed suicide by hanging himself. The deceased also left a suicide note in which name of the petitioner has been mentioned. After the Merg inquiry, offence has been registered against the present petitioner and other co-accused persons. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this matter. Mere demand of borrowed amount cannot be considered as abetment of suicide. The impugned order passed by the learned trial Court is contrary to the law and facts and the material available on record and in the suicide note no incriminating material has been found against the present petitioner except the omnibus allegation. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a reputed businessman and not having any criminal past. Hence, he prays that the impugned order be set aside and the petitioner be discharged from all the charges. He has also placed reliance upon the order passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Vedprakash Bhaiji v. State of M.P. reported in 1994 JLJ 758 and the order dated 1.10.2018 passed in the case of Ratanlal v. State of M.P. in Criminal Revision No.4485/2018. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the prayer and supported the impugned order by submitting that the trial Court has not committed any error in framing the charge against the petitioner. The petitioner has harassed the deceased, due to which he has committed suicide. Hence, the learned trial court has rightly framed the charges under Section 306 of IPC against the petitioner. 5. Counsel for both the parties heard at length and perused the impugned order and the other documents available on record. 6. The petitioner has harassed the deceased, due to which he has committed suicide. Hence, the learned trial court has rightly framed the charges under Section 306 of IPC against the petitioner. 5. Counsel for both the parties heard at length and perused the impugned order and the other documents available on record. 6. In the instant case, from perusal of the prima facie evidence available on record, it appears that there is sufficient evidence for constituting strong suspicion over the petitioner regarding the fact that he has tortured and harassed the deceased for payment of the money. Petitioner himself filed Whatsapp chat. It also corroborated the case of the prosecution regarding the payment made by the petitioner to the deceased. 7. According to the suicide note, there is clear and specific allegation against the petitioner that he has harassed the deceased and deceased clearly named the petitioner along with other co-accused persons in the detailed suicide note. He also mentioned that on 14.8.2020 petitioner along with 4 other persons tortured him and threatened him that we will come on next time and shall beat you to the extent that on the next time there should be no need for demand of money. They also abused him in filthy language, due to which the deceased scared. 8. The Hon’ble apex Court in the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt.of NCT of Delhi) reported in (2009) 16 SCC 605 has observed as under:- "Where the accused had, by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct, creates such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide, in which case an "instigation" may have to be inferred." 9. In the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra (supra), after due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case Hon'ble Court noted that prima facie, case of abetment was made out on the basis of suicide note and statements of witnesses recorded by the police. The relevant excerpt of the judgement is as follows:- "22............In the present case, apart from the suicide note, extracted above, statements recorded by the police during the course of investigation, tend to show that on account of business transactions with the accused, including the appellant herein, the deceased was put under tremendous pressure to do something which he was perhaps not willing to do. Prima facie, it appears that the conduct of the appellant and his accomplices was such that the deceased was left with no other option except to end his life and, therefore, clause firstly of section 107 of the IPC was attracted." 10. Further, manifesting the concerning provisions of framing charge, the Hon'ble apex Court ordained in para No.25 of Chitresh Kumar Chopra (supra) as under:- "25. It is trite that at the stage of framing of charge, the Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face value, disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence or offences. For this limited purpose, the court may sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at the initial stage to accept as gospel truth all that the prosecution states. At this stage, the court has to consider the material only with a view to find out if there is ground for "presuming" that the accused has committed an offence and not for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion that it is not likely to lead to a conviction." 11. Again, the Hon'ble apex Court in the case of State of M.P. v. Deepak [ (2019) 13 SCC 62 ], reversing the order of discharging from charges under section 306 of IPC, has enunciated the principles which the High Courts must keep in mind while exercising their jurisdiction under the provision. In this case, endorsing another case of Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander [ (2012) 9 SCC 460 has quoted as under:- “27.....At best and upon objective analysis of various judgments of this Court, we are able to cull out some of the principles to be considered for proper exercise of jurisdiction, particularly, with regard to quashing of charge either in exercise of jurisdiction under section 397 or section 482 of the Code or together, as the case may be: 27.2. The Court should apply the test as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made from the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith prima facie establish the offence or not. The Court should apply the test as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made from the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith prima facie establish the offence or not. If the allegations are so patently absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person can ever reach such a conclusion and where the basic ingredients of a criminal offence are not satisfied then the Court may interfere. 27.3. The High Court should not unduly interfere. No meticulous examination of the evidence is needed for considering whether the case would end in conviction or not at the stage of framing of charge or quashing of charge. 27.4. Where the exercise of such power is absolutely essential to prevent patent miscarriage of justice and for correcting some grave error that might be committed by the subordinate courts even in such cases, the High Court should be loath to interfere, at the threshold, to throttle the prosecution in exercise of its inherent powers. 27.9. Another very significant caution that the courts have to observe is that it cannot examine the facts, evidence and materials on record to determine whether there is sufficient material on the basis of which the case would end in a conviction; the court is concerned primarily with the allegations taken as a whole whether they will constitute an offence and, if so, is it an abuse of the process of court leading to injustice. 27.13. Quashing of a charge is an exception to the rule of continuous prosecution. Where the offence is even broadly satisfied, the Court should be more inclined to permit continuation of prosecution rather than its quashing at that initial stage. The Court is not expected to marshal the records with a view to decide admissibility and reliability of the documents or records but is an opinion formed prima facie.” 12. In the case in hand, it is evident from the perusal of the suicide note that the petitioner had, by his act and consecutive course of conduct, constituted such circumstances that the deceased was left with no option except to commit suicide. On the ground of repeated ferocious act of the petitioner, an instigation may have to be inferred by the learned trial court while framing the charges under section 306 of IPC. On the ground of repeated ferocious act of the petitioner, an instigation may have to be inferred by the learned trial court while framing the charges under section 306 of IPC. The learned trial .kourt has not only considered the suicide note, but also the statement of the prosecution witnesses Suresh, Ashok, Virendra, Sanjay, Kanhaiyalal and others who have stated that on 14.8.2020 petitioner along with his 4 colleagues came at the house of the deceased and abused and threatened him. 13. On this aspect, the law laid down by the Hon'ble apex Court in the case of State of Orissa v. Debendranath Padhi [2004 Law Suit (SC) 1408] is worth to refer here as under: "Further, at the stage of framing of charge roving and fishing inquiry is impermissible. If the contention of the accused is accepted, there would be a mini trial at the stage of framing of charge. That would defeat the object of the Code. It is well-settled that at the stage of framing of charge the defence of the accused cannot be put forth." 14. The aforesaid stand of the Full Bench of Hon'ble apex Court has also been endorsed by Hon'ble apex Court in another case rendered in VLS Finance Limited v. S.P. Gupta and another reported as 2016 Law suit SC 111. Further in this context, the land mark judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Maharashtra State v. Priya Sharan Maharaj & Ors. reported in AIR 1997 SC 2041 is propitious to reproduce here: "The law on the subject is now well settled, as pointed out in Niranjan Singh Punjabi v. Jitendra Bijjaya [ (1990) 4 SCC 76 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 47 : AIR 1990 SC 1962 ] that at sections 227 and 228 stage the Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. The Court may, for this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case. The Court may, for this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case. Therefore, at the stage of framing of the charge the Court has to consider the material with a view to find out if there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence or that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against him and not for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion that it is not likely to lead to a conviction.” 15. In view of the aforesaid analysis in entirety as well as the material available on record and the law laid down by the Hon’ble apex Court in the aforesaid cases, this Court does not find any illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the impugned order passed by the learned trial court. Therefore, no interference is warranted. 16. Therefore, this revision petition is devoid of merit and substance and is hereby dismissed. 17. It is made clear that this Court has not made any observation on the merits of the case and this order shall not come in the way of the learned trial court while passing the final judgment.