Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Mrudulla vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 April, 2022
Author: Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava
Bench: Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava
1 CRR 368/2022, MCRC Nos. 9770/2021, MCRC 13477/2021
and 13478 of 2021
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
Bench Gwalior
*****************
SB:- Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava
CRR 368 of 2022
Smt. Mridulla Billore & Ors. vs. State of MP
MCRC 9770 of 2021
Dr. (Mrs.) Mridulla Billore vs. State of MP & Anr.
MCRC 13477 of 2021
Jagdish Prasad Dixit vs. State of MP & Ors.
&
MCRC 13478 of 2021
Ramjit Tiwari Vs. State of MP & Ors.
========================
Shri Amitabh Upadhyay and Shri Ankit Keshwarwani, counsel for
revisionists Smt. Mridulla Billore & two others in CRR No.368
of 2022.
Shri Dharmendra Dwivedi, counsel for petitioner Dr.(Mrs).
Mridulla Billore in MCRC No 9770 of 2021.
Shri Jagdish Sharma and Shri Sohit Mishra, counsel for petitioner
Jagdish Prasad Dixit in MCRC No.13477 of 2021 as well as for
petitioner Ramjit Tiwari in MCRC No.13478 of 2021.
Shri Anvees Singh, counsel for the State in all the cases.
Shri Prashant Sharma, counsel for complainant in MCRC No.9770
of 2021.
=========================
Reserved on 23/03/2022
Whether approved for reporting ..../.......
=======================
ORDER
(Passed on 05/04/2022) Per Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava, J:-
All these above matters are decided by a common order as they arise out of same Crime No.229 of 2020, registered at Police Station Gwalior for offence under Section 306 of IPC and Section
2 CRR 368/2022, MCRC Nos. 9770/2021, MCRC 13477/2021 and 13478 of 2021 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act [in short '' the SC & ST Act'']. CRR No.368 of 2022 has been filed by revisionists Smt. Mridulla Billore with two Others u/S. 397 r/w 401 of CrPC challenging the order dated 08/01/2022 passed by Special Judge (Atrocities), Gwalior in SCATR No.182 of 2021 whereby their application u/S. 227 r/w Section 197 of CrPC has been rejected, while other three Petitions filed u/S. 482 of CrPC by petitioner Dr.(Mrs.) Mridulla Billore & two Others, namely, Jadish Prasad Dixit and Ramjit Tiwari, for quashment of FIR bearing Crime No.299/2020 registered at Police Station Gwalior for above-mentioned offences as well as other subsequent criminal proceedings initiated therefrom.
(2) Short facts giving rise to the controversy involved in all these matters are that original Merg No.28/2018 recorded under Section 174 CrPC was handed over to the IO for further investigation. It is alleged that on 07/06/2018 at House No.4/997 deceased Arun Parihar set himself on fire by pouring petrol at his house. His family members taken him to Safdarjang Hospital, New Delhi for treatment whereupon on his death, his postmortem got conducted by Safdarjang Police. Merg No.22PP, dtd. 07/06/2018, was produced by Assistant Sub-Inspector Harnarayan Dubey whereupon aforesaid original merg was recorded and during investigation, the statements of father of deceased Kailash Narayan Parihar, brother Karan Singh Parihar, witnesses Vivek Kumar Mirda, Anil Singh Kushwah, Ashok Goswami and wife Rani Parihar were recorded by Investigating Officer Sadhu Singh Gurjar and a suicide note left behind by the deceased was got examined. It is alleged that deceased Arun Parihar was posted as Skilled Labour/Daily Wager in Rajmata Vijayaraje Scindia Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya, Gwalior and the deceased was mentally and physically harassed by Smt. Mridula Billore, Dinesh Paliwal, Dr. 3 CRR 368/2022, MCRC Nos. 9770/2021, MCRC 13477/2021 and 13478 of 2021 JP Dixit, Dr. R. J. Tiwari of the said University and the same fact was alleged by the deceased in his suicide note. On the basis of enquiry, statements of the witnesses, postmortem report and enquiry report of suicide note, a crime for offence under Section 306 of IPC and 3(2)(v) of the SC & ST Act was registered.
(3) Learned counsel appearing for the revisionists, in CRR 368 of 2022, submitted that the trial Court passed the impugned order in a mechanical way without due application of mind as well as legal principles. The FIR was got registered against the revisionists on 10/05/2020 while the date of occurrence is 07/06/2018 and there is a long delay of two years in filing the FIR and no sufficient explanation has been given by prosecution in this regard. Therefore, delay in lodging FIR creates a serious doubt about the prosecution story. In support of contention, counsel for the revisionists has relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kilakkatha Parambath Sasi & Others vs. State of Kerala, 2011 Cri.L.J.3132. It is further contended that the revisionists are Senior Government Officials and the protection under Section 197 of CrPC from prosecution without sanction of competent authority is available to the revisionists as offence charged is one, which has been committed by them in their official capacity. It is further contended that even in statements of father of deceased, brother of deceased and other witnesses recorded under Section 161 of CrPC, it was alleged that the deceased was harassed by revisionists during their official duty, therefore, the revisionists could not be prosecuted without the sanction. In support of contention, counsel for the revisionists relied on the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Suresh Kumar Bhikamchand Jain vs. Pandey Ajay Bhushan & Others, 1998 Cri.L.J.1242, Amal Kujar Jha vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Another, (2016) 6 SCC 734 and Indra Devi vs. State of 4 CRR 368/2022, MCRC Nos. 9770/2021, MCRC 13477/2021 and 13478 of 2021 Rajasthan & Another (2021) 8 SCALE 434. It is further contended that if the contents of FIR and the suicide note left behind by the deceased are considered, there is no cogent evidence that the revisionists had forced the deceased to commit suicide and prima facie no case of abetment to commit suicide is made out. Neither revisionists had caused any harm to the deceased nor they were, in any way, responsible for the delay in paying salary to the deceased and they had not committed any wilful act or omission or intentionally aided or instigated the deceased to commit suicide because the ingredients of abetment are lacking as per the provisions of Section 107 of IPC. In support of contention, counsel for the revisionists relied on the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Netai Dutta vs. State of West Bengal, 2005 Crl.L.J. 1737, Gangula Mohan Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2010 Cri.L.J. 2110, Gurcharan Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2020) 10 SCC 200 and Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of Gujarat (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1048. It is further contended that the deceased was very hypersensitive in his nature and he often indulged in fighting with the staff. In absence of any evidence proving intention of accused to belittle the person belonging to SC or ST Community, revisionists cannot be prosecuted. In support of contention, counsel for the revisionists relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Asharfi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2018) 1 SCC (Crl) 489 and the order dated 12/06/2020 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in CRA No.3427 of 2020 [Dr. Dinesh Kumar Paliwal & Ors. Vs. State of MP]. It is further contended that the Investigating Officer being a public servant, who has to conduct the investigation fairly and squarely and it was his primary duty to satisfy as to whether offence is made out against the accused or not. In support of contention, counsel for the revisionists relied on 5 CRR 368/2022, MCRC Nos. 9770/2021, MCRC 13477/2021 and 13478 of 2021 the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Arvind Kumar alias Nemichand & Others vs. State of Rajasthan, 2022 Crl.L.J 374. It is further contended that the Trial Court has committed an error in dismissing the filed by revisionists under Section 227 r/w Section 197 of CrPC. Hence, prayed for setting aside the impugned order dated 08/01/2022 passed by the Trial Court.
(4) Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, in other three petitions, contended that petitioners have been falsely implicated in the alleged crime. The deceased was well aware of the fact that his job was under the Dean Faculty of Agriculture for a period of two months and there was no hostility between the petitioners and the deceased and the petitioners had never compelled the deceased to commit suicide or they had never played any active role by act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the deceased to commit suicide, therefore, no offence under Section 306 of IPC is made out in the light of judgments passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal, (2010) 1 SCC 707 & Rajesh vs. State of Haryana, AIR 2019 SC 478. It is further contended that the impugned FIR has been registered after two years of the incident and in the Final Report, it is reflected that no sufficient explanation has been given by prosecution in this regard. The impugned FIR has been registered with an ulterior motive where the allegations are absurd and improbable, therefore, the FIR deserves to be quashed in the light of the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana vs. Ch.Bhajan Lal, (1992 Supp (1) 335, State of West Bengal vs. Orilal Jaiswal (1994) 1 SCC 73, Randhir Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2004) 13 SCC 129, Kishori Lal vs. State of MP, (2007) 10 SCC 797, Kishangiri Mangalgiri Goswami vs. State of 6 CRR 368/2022, MCRC Nos. 9770/2021, MCRC 13477/2021 and 13478 of 2021 Gujarat (2009) 4 SCC 52. It is further contended that the deceased was a daily wager employee and his work was for a limited period and the employer had power to terminate him and the deceased, in the present case at hand, has availed a remedy before the Assistant Labour Commissioner but instead of waiting for the decision, he has taken this extreme step. In support of contention, the counsel for petitioners relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arnab Manoranjan Goswami vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2021) 2 SCC 427. It is further contended that the deceased was very hypersensitive in his nature and he often indulged in fighting with the staff. In support of contention, the judgment of Ude Singh vs. State of Haryana, (2020) 3 SCC (Cri) 306 has been relied upon wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that if the persons who committed suicide had been hypersensitive and the action of accused is otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly circumstanced person to commit suicide, it may not be safe to hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide. It is further contended that where the offender knows about the person, against whom offence was committed, that he belongs to ST or SC, then offence under Section 3(2)(v) of SC & ST Act can be made out but in the present matter, no documentary evidence has been produced, therefore, no offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC & ST Act is also not made out. Therefore, it is prayed that the impugned FIR bearing Crime No.229/2020 as well as other subsequent criminal proceedings initiated therefrom, deserve to be quashed.
(5) On the other hand, revision as well as petitions are opposed by State Counsel as well as Shri Sharma, learned counsel appearing for complainant in MCRC No.9770 of 2021. It is submitted that there is sufficient evidence available on record and 7 CRR 368/2022, MCRC Nos. 9770/2021, MCRC 13477/2021 and 13478 of 2021 on the basis of statements of the deceased and other witnesses as well as suicide note left behind by the deceased, the trial Court has rightly framed charges. The contents of FIR are fully supported by the prosecution case. At this stage, this Court cannot consider the effect and impact of evidence of witnesses. Hence prayed for dismissal of revision as well as petitions.
(6) Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record.
(7) Section 306 of I.P.C. reads as under :-
"306. Abetment of suicide.--If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.'' (8) "Abetment" is defined under Section 107 of IPC, which reads as under :-
"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. Explanation 1.--A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.
Illustration A, a public officer, is authorized by a warrant from a Court of Justice to apprehend Z. B, knowing that fact and also that C is not Z, wilfully represents to A that C is Z, and thereby
8 CRR 368/2022, MCRC Nos. 9770/2021, MCRC 13477/2021 and 13478 of 2021 intentionally causes A to apprehend C. Here B abets by instigation the apprehension of C. Explanation 2.--Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act."
(9) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Kerala and Ors. Vs. S. Unnikrishnan Nair & Ors. AIR 2015 SC 3351 has discussed various authorities on the above subject. The relevant para of said judgment, runs as under:-
'' 11. The aforesaid provision was interpreted in Kishori Lal v. State of M.P (2007) 10 SCC 797 :
(AIR 2007 SC 2457) by a two-Judge Bench and the discussion therein is to the following effect:
"Section 107, IPC defines abetment of a thing. The offence of abetment is a separate and distinct offence provided in IPC. A person, abets the doing of a thing when (1) he instigates any person to do that thing; or (2) engages with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing; or (3) intentionally aids, by act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. These things are essential to complete abetment as a crime. The word "instigate" literally means to provoke, incite, urge on or bring about by persuasion to do any thing. The abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid, as provided in the three clauses of Section 107. Section 109 provides that if the act abetted is committed in consequence of abetment and there is no provision for the punishment of such abetment, then the offender is to be punished with the punishment provided for the original offence. "Abetted" in Section 109 means the specific offence abetted.
Therefore, the offence for the abetment of which a person is charged with the abetment is normally linked with the proved offence."
(10) Similarly, in the matter of Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with expression 9 CRR 368/2022, MCRC Nos. 9770/2021, MCRC 13477/2021 and 13478 of 2021 ''abetment'' has observed as under:-
"The expression "abetment" has been defined under Section 107, IPC which we have already extracted above. A person is said to abet the commission of suicide when a person instigates any person to do that thing as stated in clause Firstly or to do anything as stated in clauses Secondly or Thirdly of Section 107, IPC. Section 109, IPC provides that if the act abetted is committed pursuant to and in consequence of abetment then the offender is to be punished with the punishment provided for the original offence. Learned counsel for the respondent State, however, clearly stated before us that it would be a case where clause Thirdly of Section 107, IPC only would be attracted. According to him, a case of abetment of suicide is made out as provided for under Section 107 IPC."
(11) From bare reading of provisions of Section 107 of IPC, it is clear that ''abetment'' involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. It is clear from the intention of Legislature and the law laid down by the Apex Court that in order to convict a person under Section 306, IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.
(12) Further, in the case of Gurcharan Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the basic ingredients of provision of Section 306 are suicidal death and the abetment thereof. To constitute abetment, the intention and involvement of the accused to aid or instigate the commission of suicide is imperative. Any severance or absence of any of these constituents would militate against this indictment. Remoteness of the culpable acts or 10 CRR 368/2022, MCRC Nos. 9770/2021, MCRC 13477/2021 and 13478 of 2021 omissions rooted in the intention of the accused to actualize the suicide would fall short as well of the offence of abetment essential to attract the punitive mandate of Section 306 IPC. Contiguity, culpability and complicity of the indictable acts or omission are the concomitant indices of abetment. Section 306 IPC, thus criminalizes the sustained incitement for suicide. If there is no reference or disclosure of any specific incident in support thereof, the materials on record do not suggest even remotely any act of cruelty, oppression, harassment or inducement so as to persistently provoke or compel the deceased to resort to self- extinction being left with no other alternative and no such continuous and proximate conduct of the appellant or his family members with the required provocative culpability or lethal instigative content is discernible to even infer that the deceased and her daughters had been pushed to such a distressed state, physical or mental that they elected to liquidate themselves as if to seek a practical alleviation from their unbearable earthly miseries, it could be said that the ingredients of the offence of S.306, IPC have remained unproved and thus, the appellant deserves to be acquitted. (Also see:- Jalam vs. State of M.P. 2014 CRI.L.J. 360, Ajay Patodia vs. State of M.P. 2004 CRI.L.J. 197, Surendra Pathak vs. State of M.P. 2016 CRI.L.J. 762, Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of M.P. AIR 2002 SC 1998]. (13) So far as the requirements of sanction to prosecute public servant is concerned, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Amal Kumar Jha (supra) has held as under:-
''4. It is apparent from the facts of the instant case that the allegation against the appellant is of omission in discharge of official duty in not providing Government vehicle for shifting the patient from Primary Health Centre to District Hospital, Raigad; whereas he himself travelled in the vehicle in question for attending the monthly official meeting at the District Headquarters. In our considered opinion, it
11 CRR 368/2022, MCRC Nos. 9770/2021, MCRC 13477/2021 and 13478 of 2021 was an act or omission in discharge of the official duty. The sanction to prosecute was necessary. In this case, the accused was acting in discharge of his official duty when he refused to provide the official vehicle. The refusal is directly and reasonably connected with his official duty, thus sanction is required for prosecution as provided under section 197(1)Cr.PC. It is not disputed that no ambulance was provided to the Primary Health Centre. The question arises whether omission to provide the official jeep which was not meant for patients, would constitute an omission in discharge of his duty. Though public servant is not entitled to indulge in criminal activities in the course of his duty but the act in question had relation to discharge of official duty of the accused. It was clearly connected to the performance of his official duty. When such is the case, sanction is required.
5. This Court in Shreekantiah Ramayya Munipalli v. The State of Bombay[1955 (1) SCR 1177] has observed thus :
"18. Now it is obvious that if section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is construed too narrowly it can never be applied, for of course it is no part of an official's duty to commit an offence and never can be. But it is not the duty we have to examine so much as the act, because an official act can be performed in the discharge of official duty as well as in dereliction of it. The section has content and its language must be given meaning. What it says is -
''197. (1) ......when any public servant ..... is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty......"
We have therefore first to concentrate on the word 'offence''.
19. Now an offence seldom consists of a single act. It is usually composed of several elements and, as a rule, a whole series of acts must be proved before it can be established. In the present case, the elements alleged against the second accused are, first, that there was an "entrustment" and/or "dominion"; second, that the entrustment and/or dominion was "in his capacity as a public servant"; third, that there was a "disposal"; and 12 CRR 368/2022, MCRC Nos. 9770/2021, MCRC 13477/2021 and 13478 of 2021 fourth, that the disposal was "dishonest". Now it is evident that the entrustment and/or dominion here were in an official capacity, and it is equally evident that there could in this case be no disposal, lawful or otherwise, save by an act done or purporting to be done in an official capacity.
Therefore, the act complained of, namely the disposal, could not have been done in any other way. If it was innocent, it was an official act; if dishonest, it was the dishonest doing of an official act, but in either event the act was official because the second accused could not dispose of the goods save by the doing of an official act, namely officially permitting their disposal; and that he did. He actually permitted their release and purported to do it in an official capacity, and apart from the fact that he did not pretend to act privately, there was no other way in which he could have done it. Therefore, whatever the intention or motive behind the act may have been, the physical part of it remained unaltered, so if it was official in the one case it was equally official in the other, and the only difference would lie in the intention with which it was done: in the one event, it would be done in the discharge of an official duty and in the other, in the purported discharge of it.
20. The act of abetment alleged against him stands on the same footing, for his part in the abetment was to permit the disposal of the goods by the doing of an official act and thus "willfully suffer" another person to use them dishonestly: section 405 of the Indian Penal Code. In both cases, the "offence" in his case would be incomplete without proving the official act.
21. We therefore hold that section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure applies and that sanction was necessary, and as there was none the trial is vitiated from the start. We therefore quash the proceedings against the second accused as also his conviction and sentence."
Similar view has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Indra Devi (supra).
(14) Section 227 of the Code reads as under:-
''227. Discharge. If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that 13 CRR 368/2022, MCRC Nos. 9770/2021, MCRC 13477/2021 and 13478 of 2021 there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing. '' (15) From bare perusal of provisions of Section 227 r/w Section 197 of CrPC as well as the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court as stated above, it is apparent that the Trial Court has rejected the application filed by the revisionists for discharging them from the alleged offences in a mechanical way without due application of mind. In the present matter, since the revisionists are Government officials and they were in discharge of their official duties, therefore, in absence of previous sanction of the Government, the Court had no power to take cognizance and, thus, an opportunity ought to have granted to produce the relevant materials to establish the necessary ingredients for invoking Section 197 CrPC as the public servants are treated as a special category in order to protect them from malicious or vexatious prosecution. In the case at hand, the deceased committed suicide on 07/06/2018 by setting himself on fire at his house and the impugned FIR has been lodged on 10/05/2020 i.e. after a long delay of two years. The prosecution has utterly failed to explain the delay in lodging FIR. The deceased was a daily-rated/ Daily Wager employee in Rajmata Vijayaraje Scindia Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya, Gwalior and as per the suicide note left behind by the deceased, no offence of abetment is made out against revisionists as well as petitioners. Neither any injury was caused by them nor in any way, they were responsible for delay in paying the salary to the deceased. From the contents of FIR as well as the statements of witnesses, it is apparent that no abusive language is alleged to have been used by revisionists as well as petitioners with the deceased or no threat or assault was made by them with the deceased, therefore, it seems that live and proximate link between the cause and the suicide appears to be weak and, therefore, prima 14 CRR 368/2022, MCRC Nos. 9770/2021, MCRC 13477/2021 and 13478 of 2021 facie, offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC & ST is not made out. The deceased was a daily-wager employee and his work was for a limited period and after completion of his job, he has availed a legal remedy before the Assistant Labour Commissioner but instead of waiting the final outcome, he has taken an extreme step to end his life by setting himself on fire by pouring petrol at his house. If the statements of witnesses are taken in toto, even then they do not constitute offence of abatement to commit suicide. No evidence is there to show their intention to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Neither there is any evidence of persistent pressure, harassment or torture from the revisionists as well as petitioners' side nor there is any cogent evidence that either by words or by any action, the petitioners as well as the revisionists have forced the deceased to commit suicide. For framing of charge under Section 306 of IPC, there has to be a mens rea to impel or incite the person to commit suicide. It also requires an active or direct act which lead the deceased to commit suicide and this act must push him into such a position that he sees no option except to annihilate his own life. On a plain reading of the statements of witnesses, it is difficult to hold that there had been any abetment by the revisionists as well as the petitioners. In view of the legal provisions, if allegations made in FIR or in the statements of witnesses taken at their face value and accept them in their entirety, even then it does not constitute offence alleged against the petitioners as well as the revisionists.
(16) As a consequence, CRR 368 of 2022 filed by Smt. Mridulla Billore and two others is Allowed and the application filed by them u/S. 227 r/w Section 197 of CrPC also stands Allowed. Proceedings under Section 306 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC & ST Act pending before the Court of Special Judge (Atrocities), District Gwalior in SCATR No.182 of 2021 stands Quashed.
15 CRR 368/2022, MCRC Nos. 9770/2021, MCRC 13477/2021 and 13478 of 2021 Similarly, other three petitions filed by petitioners (MCRC 9770 of 2021 Dr.(Mrs) Mridulla Billore vs. State of MP & Another, MCRC 13477 of 2021 Jagdish Prasad Dixit vs. State of MP & Others & MCRC 13478 of 2021 Ramjit Tiwari Vs. State of MP & Others) are Allowed and FIR bearing Crime No.229/2020 registered at Police Station Gwalior for offence under Section 306 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC & ST Act and other subsequent criminal proceedings initiated therefrom stands Quashed.
(17) Let a copy of this order be sent to the Trial Court concerned as well as Police Station concerned for information and compliance .
Copy of this order be kept in each of the connected cases.
(Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava) Judge MKB Digitally signed by MAHENDRA BARIK Date: 2022.04.05 18:17:16 +05'30'