Madhya Pradesh High Court
Neelu Pal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 April, 2024
Author: Subodh Abhyankar
Bench: Subodh Abhyankar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR
ON THE 30th OF APRIL, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 17735 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
NEELU PAL W/O LATE HITESH PAL, AGED
ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUWE
1. WORK 551, MR-6, MAHALAXMI NAGAR, PS
LASUDIYA DISTT. INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
KRISHNA RATHOD S/O KAILASH CHANDRA
RATHOD, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
2. OCCUPATION: LABOURER 111, RADHA
BHAWAN, HARDEV LALA KI PIPLI,
DISTRICT RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI ABHAY SARASWAT, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION
HOUSE OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION
LASUDIYA DISTT. INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SAMEER VERMA, G.A./P.L.)
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed
the following:
ORDER
1] This petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashment of FIR and charge sheet registered at police station Lasudiya, District Indore in connection with crime No.244/2023 for offence under Section 306, 384, and 34 of I.P.C. and Section 25 of Arms Act.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: KHEMRAJ JOSHI Signing time: 5/4/2024 3:44:45 PM 22] Learned counsel for the petitioners, at the outset has submitted that the petition of identically placed accused viz., Rani Udasi has already been allowed by this Court vide order dated 22/04/2024, passed in M.Cr.C. No.13932/2024 and the FIR and subsequent proceedings have been quashed.
3] Counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to the aforesaid order dated 22/04/2024, to submit that even if the suicide note left by the deceased is considered at its face value, it does not amount to any abetment on the part of the petitioners as no other tangible evidence has been seized during the course of investigation by the police.
4] Counsel for the State has submitted that no case for interference is made out, however, it is not denied that except the suicide note, no other material is available on record to connect the petitioners with the offence.
5] Heard. Having considered the rival submissions and on perusal of the documents filed on record as also the order dated 22/04/2024 passed by this Court in M.Cr.C. No.13932/2024 in the case of Rani Udasi (supra), it is found that while quashing the FIR against the said accused, this Court has made the following observations:-
"2] In brief, the facts of the case are that Hitesh Pal (deceased) committed suicide on 11.02.2023, at around 23:20 hours, regarding which, an intimation was given to the police at 1:30 a.m., police station Lasudiya, Indore. Prior to his death, the deceased also wrote a suicide note, in which, he named one Krishna Rathore, his own wife-Neelu and the present petitioner Smt. Rani Udasi as the persons who were responsible for his death, as according to him, these persons were performing black magic against the deceased.
3] Counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to a complaint -NCR lodged by Neelu, the wife of the deceased on 10.02.2023 at around 12:45 in the noon, i.e., one day prior to the suicide by the deceased, wherein, she has alleged that her husband Hitesh Pal (deceased) is in the habit of drinking and after consuming the liquor, he ill-treats her, and on 10.02.2023 at around 12:45 hours, her cousin came to their house and thereafter, they went to a nearby temple to convince the deceased to Signature Not Verified Signed by: KHEMRAJ JOSHI Signing time: 5/4/2024 3:44:45 PM 3 deter from his behaviour, but the deceased started assaulting his wife and Krishna Rathore, and thus an NCR (non-cognizable report) has been registered under Section 155 of the Cr.P.C., and soon thereafter, on 11.02.2023, the deceased committed suicide at around 23:20 hours; thus, the counsel has submitted the deceased committed suicide for fear of the police action against him and there is nothing to connect the present petitioner with the offence of abatement except a passing reference of her name in the suicide note left by the deceased. Thus, it is submitted that the petition be allowed and the FIR as also the charge-sheet filed against her be quashed.
4] Counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and it is submitted that looking to the suicide note left by the deceased, no case for interference is made out.
5] Heard the counsel for the parties and also perused the record. 6] From the record, it is apparent that it is a case where the deceased has left a suicide note, and thus, the suicide note would be a germane piece of evidence, which may be proved by the prosecution during the trial. However, it is found that in the relevant para of same, the petitioner's name has been referred to in the following manner:-
"bUosfLVxs'ku djrs le; vkidks gekjs eafnj esa rkaf=d fØ;kvks dh phtsa fey tk;xh tks ;s lc yksx esjs Åij djk djrs Fks vkSj cksyrs Fks dh blfy;s rqEgkjs ikl bruk iSlk gSA vxj ge ;s ugha djsaxs rks vkidk iSlk vkSj bTtr nksuks pyh tk;xhA bl d`".kk jkBkSj dk esjh choh uhyw rFkk jkuh mnklh ¼HkkHkh½ ds vykok Hkh dbZ vkSjrks ds lkFk lEcU/k gS eq>s Mjkus ds fy;s d`".kk jkBksj us ,d fiLVy Hkh esjh choh uhyw dks ns j[kh Fkh tks eq>s dy diM+s tekrs oDr feyh vkSj eSus mls gekjs csM:e ds Åij cus QfuZpj ij j[k nh gS dks Hkh cjker djsaA eSa fgrs'k iky firk y{e.k th iky] fuoklh 551] MR-6 countiwalk egky{eh uxj bUnkSj] vkRegR;k ¼tks dh eMj gS½ djus tk jgk gwWa D;ksafd fnukad 10@02@2023 dks eSaus viuh iRuh uhyw iky dks mlds vkf'kd d`".kk jkBkSj ds lkFk jaxs gkFkks egky{eh uxj fLFkr egky{eh eafnj ds xkMZu esa jaxs gkFkks esa idM+k ¼whatsapp osc ds ek/;e ls ½ eSa fiNsys dqN fnuksa ls bu nksuksa ij utj j[ks Fkk vkSj dy tk dj ;s yksx idM+ esa vk;s eq>s psV ds ek/;e ls irk pyk dh ;s nksuks d`".kk jkBkSj ds :e ij feyk djrs FksA 10@02@2023 dks Hkh ;s eafnj ls :e es gh tkus okys Fks tks uEcj ftu ij vkil esa pSfVax gksrh Fkh oks bl izdkj gSA uhyw & 8989811398 vkSj d`".kk jkBkSj ¼cchrk ftl uke ls uEcj lso Fkk½ uEcj &&&&&&&&&&A bu nksuksa uEcj dh pSfVax fudkyh tk;s D;ksafd feyuk tqyuk ¼sex½ lc fiNys 1&1-5 lky ls py jgk gS esjh choh dbZ ckj d`".kk jkBkSj dks egaxs fxQ~V fn;k djrh Fkh vkSj dgrh Fkh dh ;s esjk HkkbZ gS vkSj isesaV dk Hkh ysu nsu djrh Fkh gn rks rc gks xbZ tc blus ¼uhyw us½ dqN fnu igys Jeep campas dkj no. &&&&&&& d`".kk dks fxQ~V djh tksdh uhyw ds uke ij gSA ftldk eq>s vkt irk py jgk gSA bu lc esa jkuh mnklh ¼HkkHkh euklk½ Hkh 'kkfey gSA ;s rhuksa yksx feydj ? kj bUnkSj esa rFkk jkuh mnklh ds ?kj ¼euklk½ esa rkaf=d fd;k djrs vkSj eq>s fiNys ,d lky ls dksbZ /khek tgj ns jgs Fks ftldh otg ls eSa lqLr jgus yxk vkSj esjk iwjk 'kjhj dkyk iM+ x;k tks dh iksLVekVZe es irk pyk tk,sxkA mDr fo"k; esa iqfyl iz'kklu ls fuosnu jgsxk dh psfVax [kaxkys vkSj nksf"k;ksa dks ltk ns esjh choh uhyw rkaf=d fd;k rFkk eq>s dqN f[kykdj lkjh izksiVhZ vius uke djrh xbZA tks dh esjs ejus ds ckn esjs csVs ;qojkt rFkk esjs ekrk&firk dks nh tk;s oks eq>s ekjuk pkgrh Fkh rHkh mlus lHkh ikWfylh esa ukWfeuh esa viuk uke Myok;k gSA esjh ekSr ¼/khes tgj ls eMZj½ ds ftEesnkj flQZ ;s rhu yksx gSA 1- esjh iRuh uhyw iky 2- d`".kk jkBkSj jryke s/o dSyk'k jkBkSj ¼ekok okyk½ 3- jkuh mnklh ¼euklk½ gLrk{kj e`rd"
(emphasis supplied) Signature Not Verified Signed by: KHEMRAJ JOSHI Signing time: 5/4/2024 3:44:45 PM 4 7] In the considered opinion of this Court, the aforesaid narration of events, made by the deceased before committing suicide does not fall within the definition of abatement u/s. 107 of the IPC as there is no allegation of any abatement made by the petitioner to the deceased to commit suicide.
8] In such circumstances, when the petitioner was admittedly not residing with the deceased and his wife, the allegations in the suicide note that she was also responsible for giving slow poison to him is hardly of any consequence, and merely, on the basis of the suicide note left by Hitesh Pal (deceased), the petitioner cannot be held responsible for his death. 9]In view of the same, the petition stands allowed and the FIR lodged against the petitioner at Crime No.244/2023 at Police Station Lasudiya, District- Indore (M.P.) under Sections 306, 384 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Section 25 of the Arms Act, the charge sheet and all the subsequent proceedings pending before the trial court, so far as it relates to the petitioner are hereby quashed. The petitioner is discharged from the aforementioned charges."
6] It is an admitted fact that the present petitioner No.1 is the wife of the deceased, whereas petitioner No.2 is the person against whom, it is alleged that he was having illicit relationship with the petitioner No.1, and considering the fact that FIR against the co-accused Rani Udasi has already been quashed as aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that a case for quashment of FIR is made out in favour of the petitioners as well.
7] Accordingly, the petition stands allowed and the FIR lodged against the petitioner at Crime No.244/2023 at Police Station Lasudiya, District- Indore (M.P.) under Sections 306, 384 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Section 25 of the Arms Act, the charge sheet and all the subsequent proceedings pending before the trial court, so far as it relates to the petitioners are hereby quashed. The petitioners are discharged from the aforementioned charges. Sd/-
(SUBODH ABHYANKAR) JUDGE krjoshi Signature Not Verified Signed by: KHEMRAJ JOSHI Signing time: 5/4/2024 3:44:45 PM