Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 32 (MP)

SAMARJEET YADAV v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2023-01-04

DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL

body2023
ORDER : – Petitioners Samarjeet Yadav and Smt. Sangeeta Shakya filed this petition under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code for quashment of charge-sheet and consequential criminal proceedings which were registered on the basis of Crime No. 198/2019 at Police Station Picchore, District Gwalior for the offence under sections 306, 34 of Indian Penal Code and section 3(2)(v) of S.C. S.T. Act. 2. In brief, facts of the case for the disposal of this petition are that on 10-5-2019 at 3.26 pm Ashok Parihar gave an information to police Picchore, District Gwalior that in the afternoon at about 2.00 pm he had gone to river side and saw a dead body of male aged about 30 years was lying down in Sindh river, who was wearing green T-shirt, jeans and belt. On his information merg 14/19 was registered at police Station Picchore. Dead body panchnama was prepared. Dead body was identified to be of Rakesh Shakya (Patel) S/o Thakuri. Dead body was sent for postmortem. As per post-mortem report, cause of death cannot be given. Body was decomposed. Merg was inquired. During Merg inquiry statement of brother of deceased Munna Babu was recorded in which he has stated that deceased’s wife i.e. present petitioner No. 2 Smt. Sangeeta Shakya was having illicit relationship with petitioner No. 1 Samarjeet Yadav, due to this, his brother used to be remained disturbed. He has advised his wife not to make relationship with petitioner No. 1, despite his request she did not respond, due to which, his brother was murdered by his wife. Statement of another brothers Harvilas, Brijendra Singh were also recorded. Thereafter, after about seven months of the date of incident on 10-12-2019 offence under section 306, 34 Indian Penal Code bearing Crime No. 198/19 at Police Station Picchore, District Gwalior was registered against the petitioners. After investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted against them under section 306, 34 of Indian Penal Code and section 3(2)(v) of S.C.S.T. Act. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that case of the prosecution does not come within the purview of section 107 of Indian Penal Code because only on the ground of illicit relationship it cannot be assumed that it comes in the definition of abetment. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that case of the prosecution does not come within the purview of section 107 of Indian Penal Code because only on the ground of illicit relationship it cannot be assumed that it comes in the definition of abetment. He has relied upon the judgment passed in the cases of K. V. Prakash Babu vs. State of Karnataka, reported in (2017) 11 SCC 167, Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal vs. State of Gujarat, reported in (2013) 10 SCC 48 , Amalendu Pal vs. State of W. B., reported in (2010) 1 SCC 707 . 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State as well as counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the petition on the ground that the offences which was registered against the petitioners are against the society and the said offences are not compoundable. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. The parameters of ‘abetment’ have been stated in section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, which defines ‘abetment of a thing’ as follows : – “107. Abetment of a thing. – A person abets the doing of a thing, who – First - Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly - Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly - Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. 7. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, case of the prosecution does not come within the purview of section 107 of Indian Penal Code. Thus, considering the totality of the circumstances and the law laid down by the Apex Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that even if the entire allegations are accepted, then there is no prima facie material to show that the petitioners in any manner had abetted the deceased to commit suicide. Thus, considering the totality of the circumstances and the law laid down by the Apex Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that even if the entire allegations are accepted, then there is no prima facie material to show that the petitioners in any manner had abetted the deceased to commit suicide. In such circumstances, the FIR bearing Crime No. 198/2019 registered at Police Station Picchore, District Gwalior for the offence punishable under section 306, 34 of Indian Penal Code and section 3(2)(v) of S.C. S.T. Act as well as charge-sheet filed against the petitioners for the aforesaid sections and all other consequential criminal proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR, deserve to be quashed and the same are hereby quashed. The petition stands allowed in aforesaid terms.