Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jayant vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 May, 2017
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT INDORE
SINGLE BENCH:HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ALOK VERMA
M.Cr.C. NO.2686 / 2017
Jayant s/o Babulal Malviya
Vs.
State of M.P.
Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Ashish Choubey, learned counsel for respondent/State.
__________________________________________
ORDER
(Passed on 09/05/2017) This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed for quahsment of FIR arising out of Crime No.166/2016 under Section 306/34 IPC and under Section 4 of 'M.P. Riniyo Ka Sanrakshan Adhiniyam', 1937 by Police Station Dahi, District Dhar in proceedings arising there from.
2) According to the prosecution story, deceased Gajendra Singh Chougad was working as teacher in a primary school, Ghana. He took some amount of loan from accused Jayant Singh s/o Babulal Malviya and Dinesh s/o Babulal Kakadiya. It is alleged and complained by the deceased prior to his death that present applicants were trying to pressurize him to repay the loan putting heavy interest thereon and they were harassing the deceased. They also used to insult him before general public at public places. Driven by such humiliation and harassment, he committed suicide by hanging himself on 20/12/2016. The present applicants were implicated as accused under Section 306 IPC for abetting suicide of the deceased.
3) The applicant placed reliance on the judgment delivered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2002 SCC (Cri) 1141, in which, it was held that ingredients of section 107 of IPC should present for taking the act as abatement of the suicide. "Instigate" denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or inadvisable action or to stimulate or incite. Presence of mens rea is the necessary concomitant for instigation. Words uttered in a quarrel or on the spur or moment, such as "to go and die" cannot be taken to the uttered with mens rea.
4) Placing reliance on this judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, learned counsel for the applicant argues that in the present case, the allegation against the present applicant is that they demanded the money back, which they gave to the deceased on loan. Demanding their money back does not amount to abetment to commit suicide.
5) To see whether, the deceased committed suicide on being abated by the present applicant, there should present one of the ingredients as stated in section 107 of IPC. Section 107 of IPC requires either of three overt acts on behalf of the person said to have abated the suicide :-
First â Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly â 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 â Intentionally aids, by act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
6) Apart from the above judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, learned counsel also placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2013 Cr.L.R. (SC) 955 where, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed in paragraph 26 of the judgment as under :-
26. Section 306 refers to abatement of suicide. It says that if any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years and shall also be liable to fine. The action for committing suicide is also on account of mental disturbance caused by mental and physical cruelty. To constitute an offence under Section 306, the prosecution has to establish that a person has committed suicide and the suicide was abetted by the accused. Prosecution has to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased committed suicide and the accused abetted the commission of suicide. But for the alleged extra marital relationship, which if proved, could be illegal and immoral, nothing has been brought out by the prosecution to show that the accused had provoked, incited or induced the wife to commit suicide.
7) I have gone through the case-diary and also the photocopies of various documents filed by the applicant. Reverting back to the present case, in considered opinion of this Court, if we take into consideration the act alleged on the part of present applicant, it is apparent that following the principles laid down in the case of Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal (supra), no abetment can be alleged under Section 107 IPC.
8) As such, in my opinion, so far as the present applicant is concerned, no charge is prima-facie made out under Section 306 IPC and under Section 4 of 'M.P. Riniyo Ka Sanrakshan Adhiniyam', 1937. Accordingly, this application is allowed. The FIR arising out of Crime No.166/2016 under Section 306/34 IPC and u/S 4 of 'M.P. Riniyo Ka Sanrakshan Adhiniyam', 1937 and the proceedings arising there from are hereby quashed. The present applicant is discharged from the offence under the aforementioned provisions of law. The matter stands disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Verma) Judge