Chattisgarh High Court
Akash Sharma vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 7 December, 2021
Author: Narendra Kumar Vyas
Bench: Narendra Kumar Vyas
Page 1 of 22
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPCR No. 186 of 2021
Reserved on : 22.09.2021
Delivered on : 07.12.2021
Akash Sharma, S/o Mahaveer Sharma, Aged About 33 Years, R/o
Bazar Mohalla Madhya Nagri, Katghora, District- Korba (C.G.)
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh: through the Secretary, through the Station
House Officer, Police Station- Katghora, District- Korba (C.G.)
2. Nirmala Rajput, W/o Jaswant Singh Jat, Aged About 40 Years,
R/o Bankimongra, House No. 34/03, Police Station-
Bankimongra, District- Korba (C.G.)
---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate. For State/Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Gurudev I. Sharan, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas C.A.V. ORDER
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing FIR No. 52/2021 (Annexure P/1) registered against him for committing offence punishable under Section 306 & 34 of IPC on the basis of complaint made by respondent No. 2-Nirmala Rajput.
2. The brief facts as projected by the petitioner are that complainant/ respondent No. 2 has given an intimation to Police Station- Katghora, District- Korba (C.G.) that younger brother of her husband has committed suicide in the house. The deceased- Balvinder Singh was habitual to consume liquour and he used to run auto rickshaw. The deceased used to live with his family members at Bazar Mohalla, Katghora and half portion of his house has been given on rent to Sanjay Yadav and his wife namely Anusuiya Yadav. On 22.01.2021, a quarrel took place Page 2 of 22 between Balvinder Singh, his wife Tuli Kaur and tenant Sanjay Yadav and due to which, Tuli Kaur went to her parental house at Korba. On 22.01.2021 at about 10:00 a.m., the complainant/ respondent No. 2 went to the house of deceased- Balvinder Singh and found that the deceased has committed suicide by hanging himself in the house. The complainant called the neighbours and thereafter she has given intimation to Police Station- Katghora, District- Korba. On the basis of above report, offence under Section 306/34 of IPC has been registered against the accused persons namely Sanjay Yadav, Purnima Yadav, Yashoda Bai Yadav & the present petitioner- Akash Sharma.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that if the case of the prosecution is taken as it is then also the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC is not made out against the petitioner. Even the FIR does not reflect that the petitioner has abetted or instigated the deceased to commit suicide. There is no ingredient of instigation as defined under Section 107 of IPC. The only allegation against the petitioner is that the Anusuiya Yadav wife of Sanjay Yadav, the tenant of the deceased was doing household work in house of the petitioner and the petitioner was giving support to said Anusuiya Yadav, the said allegation does not constitute the offence under Section 306 of IPC against the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would rely upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Swamy Prahladas Vs. State of Madhya Pradhesh & another 1, the judgment passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Amit Gandhi & another Vs. State Chhattisgarh2, judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in M. Mohan Vs. State represented by Deputy Superintendent of Police3, Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh4, Madan Mohan Singh Vs. State of 1 (1995) Supp. (3) SCC 438 2 Criminal Revision No. 136 of 2014 & 199 of 2014 3 (2011) 3 SCC 626 4 (2001) 9 SCC 618 Page 3 of 22 Gujarat & another5, Vaijnath Kondiba Khandke Vs. State of Maharashtra & another6, Kanchan Sharma Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & another7 Sunita Rathore Vs. State of M.P. 8 & Sandeep Mishra Vs. State of Chhattisgarh9 Sunita Bharadwaj Vs. State of C.G.10, Rajendra Kumar @ Guddu Thakur Vs. State of Chhattisgarh 11, Rajendra Kumar Dadsena Vs. State of Chhattisgarh12. He also referred to the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of M.P. 13, Gurcharan Singh Vs. State of Punjab14 & State of West Bengal Vs. Indrajit Kundu & others15 and would pray that this petition may kindly be allowed and the FIR registered against the petitioner may be quashed.
5. Notice was issued to the respondents vide its Court order dated 16.03.2021, which has been served upon respondent No. 2, but no one has entered appearance on her behalf, thereafter the matter was listed on 19.07.2021. On that date also no one appeared on behalf of respondent No. 2, thereafter the matter was adjourned to 08.09.2021. On 08.09.2021, this Court directed the State counsel to call for the case diary and adjourned the matter to 17.09.2021. On 17.09.2021, the case was again adjourned to 22.09.2021. On 22.09.2021, no one appeared on behalf of respondent No. 2 and the case was heard and reserved for orders.
6. Learned State counsel has filed return, in which, it has been stated that an oral intimation was received from respondent No. 2- Smt. Nirmala Rajput to the effect that her brother-in-law namely Balvinder Singh committed suicide by hanging himself.
5 (2010) 8 SCC 628 6 (2018) 7 SCC 781 7 2021 SCC OnLine SC 737 8 2021 SCC OnLine MP 1487 9 (2020) 3 CGLJ 73 10 CRR No. 1062 of 2019 (decided on 04.10.2019) 11 CRR No. 338 of 2020 (decided on 13.01.2021) 12 CRR No. 05 of 2016 (decided on 12.05.2016) 13 (2002) 5 SCC 371 14 (2020) 10 SCC 200 15 (2019) 10 SCC 188 Page 4 of 22 Upon the said intimation, a Merg No. 11/2021 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. was registered by the police and thereafter, the police started investigation. He would further submit that during course of Merg enquiry, dead body of the deceased- Balvinder Singh was sent for postmortem and as per the postmortem report, nature of death of the deceased is found suicidal.
7. He would further submit that during course of Merg enquiry, a suicidal note written by the deceased was recovered in which, the deceased has very categorically named the petitioner and other co-accused to the effect that the petitioner and other co- accused have instigated and abetted him for committing suicide. Upon being found prima facie offence, FIR has been registered against the persons whose names are mentioned in the suicidal note written by the deceased including the petitioner. He would further submit that after registering the offence, police started investigation and during course of investigation, the investigating agency has collected sufficient materials, statements were recorded and wife of the deceased and in-laws (Bhabhi) of the deceased have clearly named the petitioner in their statements recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. stating that the deceased was instigated by the petitioner and other co-accused person for committing suicide. The investigation is under process and in it is in advance stage.
8. He would further submit that during course of Merg investigation, it was found that the ancestral property/ house was partitioned between the deceased and his brother and in half share of the property of the deceased, accused Sanjay Yadav with his family namely Purnima Yadav, Yashoda Bai Yadav were residing on rent. It was further found that upon denial for payment of rent, the Balvinder Singh asked them to vacate the house and for this reason, there was a revenge between the deceased and the aforesaid accused. It was also found that wife of Sanjay Yadav was an employee of the present accused, therefore, he was favouring her family not to vacate the house of the deceased.
Page 5 of 22The accused- Sanjay Yadav and his wife Anusuiya Yadav both refused to vacate the house and also refused to pay the rent and whenever the deceased asked Sanjay Yadav and his wife Anusuiya Yadav for rent, then they started beating the deceased and in that process, the present petitioner was also helped Sanjay Yadav and Anusuiya Yadav and stated that the house in which Sanjay Yadav and Anusuiya Yadav were residing on rent, was constructed in the land of the petitioner and he asked them not to pay the rent and also not to vacate the premises. The petitioner always visited house of the deceased and gave a threat to the deceased stating that Sanjay Yadav and Anusuiya Yadav will not vacate the premises and will also not pay the rent.
9. He would further submit that during course of investigation, sufficient material other than the suicidal note has been collected which clearly establishes that the petitioner and other co- accused instigated and abetted the deceased for committing suicide, therefore, the offence under Section 306 & 34 of IPC has been registered against the petitioner and other co-accused persons. He would further submit that the suicidal note which was recovered by the police clearly reveals that the deceased was instigated and abetted by the present petitioner, as a result of which, the deceased committed suicide. Contents of the suicidal note are extracted below for ready reference:-
"eSa cyfoUnj flag vkdk'k 'kekZ vkSj esjs fdjk;s nkj ls etcqj gksdj vkRegR;k dj jgk gwa------------
eSa cyfoUnj flag vius gksl gokl esa c;ku ns jgk gwa fd esjs vkRegR;k djus esa etcqj fd;k x;k gS tks fd vkdk'k 'kekZ vkSj mldh lg;ksxh iq.khZek ;kno vkSj ;lksnk ckbZ] lat; ;kno tks Hkh djhch gS oks lHkh esjs dks ekjus ds fy;s vk;s FksA"
10. He would further submit that from bare perusal of the suicidal note, it is clear that ingredients of Section 306 and 107 of IPC are clearly made out against the petitioner because the petitioner with other co-accused persons instigated and abetted the deceased to commit suicide. The petitioner created pressure upon the deceased not to ask Sanjay Yadav and others who are Page 6 of 22 residing in the house of the deceased on rent for vacating the premises and threatened the deceased, therefore, the ingredient of Section 107 of IPC is attracted against the petitioner for abetment or instigation.
11. On the contrary, learned counsel for the State would submit that the investigation is going on, materials are being collected, therefore, petition for quashing of the FIR, is not maintainable at this juncture, challenging the FIR, therefore, the petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed by this Court at this stage. He placed reliance upon the judgments rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Vinod Raghuvanshi Vs. Ajay Arora16, N. Soundaram Vs. P.K. Pounraj17, Dineshbai Chandubhai Patel Vs. State of Gujrat18 & Narayan Malhari Thorat Vs. Vinayak Deorao Bhagat19.
12. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as respondent No. 1/State, perused the documents and the case diary with utmost satisfaction, which has been requisitioned by this Court at the time of hearing of the matter
13. The prosecution after registration of Merg intimation on 22.01.2021, has recorded statement of respondent No.2/ complainant, wherein she has stated as under:-
"lwpd gejkg vius ifr tloar flag ds lkFk mifLFkr vkdj tckuh exZ bUVhes'ku pkd djkbZ fd blds ifr 03 HkkbZ gS lcls cMs+ esjs ifr gS vkSj NksVk HkkbZ cyfoUnj flag Fkk tks dV?kksjk ds cktkj eksgYyk esa lifjokj jgrk Fkk] mldh ifRu rqyh dkSj gS tks fnukad 21@01@21 dks 'kke dks vius vki ds ifr ls >xM+k gksus ds dkj.k dksjck pyh xbZ Fkh bldk nsoj vkVks pykrk Fkk vkSj 'kjkc ihus dk vknh Fkk [kqn ds ?kj dks vk/kk fgLlk dks fdjk;s ij fn;k gSA ijlks jkf= dks bldh nso jkuh dksj ck ls eksc k- ls lwp uk nh Fkh fd blds ifr dk fdjk;sn kj ,oa mlls >xM+k gq v k gS A blfy;s og ek;ds cPps dks ysd j vk xbZ gS A tks ;g vius ifjfpr lgsy h ds lkFk dV?kkssj k vkbZ Fkh vkS j ;g vdsy s vius nso j ds ?kj xbZ Fkh ns[ krh gS van j dejs ds E;kaj esa bldk nso j Qkal h 16 (2013) 10 SCC 581 17 (2014) 10 SCC 616 18 (2018) 3 SCC 104 19 (2019) 13 SCC 598 Page 7 of 22 yxkdj ekS r gks x;k Fkk ;g ?kVuk ns[kdj Mj xbZ vkSj rqjar ckgj fudydj iM+ksfl;ksa dks 11&00 cts crkbZ vkSj ?kj okyksa dks lwpuk nsdj fjiksVZ ntZ djkus vkbZ gSA lwpuk ij exZ tn dk;e dj iapukek dk;Zokgh esa fy;k x;kA lwpuk SDM egksn; dks Hksth tkrh gSA "
14. The relevant para of the statement recorded in this case under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. is extracted below:-
"Jaswant Singh- ........ fdjk;snkjksa ds }kjk esjs HkkbZ dks fdjk;s dk iSlk ugha ns jgs gSA fdjk;s dk iSlk ugha ns jgs ,oa edku Hkh [kkyh ugha dj jgs gS blh ckr ij ls fdjk;snkj okyksa ds }kjk e`rd esjk NksVk HkkbZ cyfoUnj ls >xM+k fd;s Fks vkSj cgq rqyh ls Hkh cyfoUnj >xM+k fd;k FkkA >xM+k ds ckn cgq rqyh dkSj cPps dks ysdj ek;ds pyh x;h Fkh ek;ds tkus ds ckn fdjk;snkj okyksa ls >xM+k gksus dh ckr esjh ifRu fueZyk jktiwr dks crk;h Fkh rc esjh ifRu ?kVuk dh tkudkjh eq>s nh FkhA vkt fnukad 22-01-21 dks esjh ifRu viuh lgsyh uhek izlkn ds lkFk dV?kksjk vk;h Fkh vkSj esjh ifRu HkkbZ ds ?kj dV?kksjk xbZ rks ogak HkkbZ cyfoUnj dk lHkh njoktk [kqyk Fkk ifRu vanj tkdj ns[kh rks HkkbZ Qkalh yxk fy;k Fkk rc esjh ifRu eq>s lwpuk nh rc eSa uhek dk ifr gfje izlkn ds lkFk dV?kksjk vk;k vkSj Mk;y 112 esa ifRu ds lkFk Fkkuk esa ?kVuk dh lwpuk fn;s gSA HkkbZ fdjk;snkj okyksa ls gh ijs'kku jgrk Fkk fdjk;snkj okyksa ds }kjk izrkfM+r FksA blh dkj.k HkkbZ Qkalh yxkdj QkSr gqvk gSA Tuli Bai Kaur- ........ esjk ifr cyfoUnj dHkh dHkh 'kjkc ihrk Fkk vkSj edku fdjk;snkjksa ds }kjk edku dk fdjk;k ugha nsus ,oa edku [kkyh ugha djus dh ckr ij dHkh dHkh genksuks ifr ifRu ds chp esa yM+kbZ >xM+k gksrk Fkk lkseokj ,oa eaxyokj dks lat; ;kno] vuqlqbZ;k] ;'kksnk ;kno] fd'ku ,oa dqafr ,oa iw.khZek djhc 10%30 cts jkr ,oa eaxyokj dks lqcg 10&11 cts esjs ?kj vk;s vkSj cksyus yxs fd edku dk fdjk;k Hkh ugha nsaxs vkSj edku Hkh [kkyh ugha djsaxs tks djuk gS dj yks dgdj edku fdjk;s dh ckr dks ysdj mDr lHkh yksx esjs ifr cyfoUnj dks gkFk eqDdk ls ekjihV fd;s gSa ,oa fnu eaxyokj dks Hkh esjs ifr ls yM+kbZ >xM+k dj ekjihV fd;s rc eq>s esjs ifr cyfoUnj cksys fd rqe cPps dks ysdj ek;ds pys tkvks ugha rks rqedks Hkh esjs tSlk ekjihV djsaxs dgdj cksyk vkSj ifr ds dgus ij eaxyokj 'kke dks eSa vius cPps jktchj flag ds lkFk dksjck pyh xbZ esjk ifr ls >xM+k fnu lkseokj dks tc lat; ;kno ,oa mlds iwjs ifjokj esjs ifr ls >xM+k fd;s vkSj ekjihV fd;s rc mudk xqLlk esjs mij mrkjus ds fy, eq>ls >xM+k fd;s Fks ijarq eaxyokj dks genksuks ifr ifRu ds chp >xM+k ugha gqvk gS ek;ds tkus ds ckn dy fnukad 21-01- 2021 ds djhc 09&10 cts jkr dks esjs ifr ls Qksu ls ckr gqbZ Fkh rc Hkh esjs ifr 'kjkc fi;s gq;s Fks vkSj Qksu ij eq>s crk;s fd ekjihV yM+kbZ >xM+k gks jgk gS rc eSa vius ifr Page 8 of 22 dks le>kbZ Fkh fi;s gks rks >xM+k er djuk pqipki ?kj esa jguk dgdj cksyh Fkh ,oa >xM+k dh ckr eSa viuh tsBkuh fueZyk mQZ iwtk dks crkbZ FkhA vkt fnukad 22-01-2021 dks esjh tsBkuh fueZyk mQZ iwtk tks dV?kksjk vkbZ vkSj gekjs ?kj xbZ rc esjh tsBkuh ns[kh fd esjk ifr ?kj ds E;kj esa Qkalh yxk fy;k Fkk ?kVuk dh tkudkjh eq>s Qksu ls nh rc eSa ? kVuk dh tkudkjh gksus ij vius ek;ds okys cM+s eEeh QwyckbZ] vfgY;k ckbZ] rsjl] larks"kh ds lkFk dV?kksjk ?kj vkdj ns[kh esjk ifr ?kj ds E;kj esa jLlh ls Qkalh yxk fy;s Fks esjs ifr edku ds fdjk;snkj lat; ;kno] vuqlqbZ;k ;kno] ;'kksnk ;kno] iw.khZek ;kno] dqafr ;kno ,oa fd'ku ;kno }kjk edku fdjk;k dk iSlk ugha nsus ,oa edku [kkyh ugha djus rFkk muds }kjk okn fookn dj ekjihV djus ds dkj.k ,oa vkdk'k 'kekZ ds }kjk Hkh gekjs ?kj vkdj fdjk;snkjksa dks edku [kkyh u djus ,oa fdjk;k ugha nsus gsrq i{k ysdj /kedkus ds dkj.k gh izrkfM+r gksdj Qkalh yxkdj vkRegR;k fd;k gSA Satvinder Singh- ........ edku fdjk;s dh ckr dks ysdj esjk NksVk HkkbZ cyfoUnj flag ds lkFk edku fdjk;snkj yksx >xM+k fd;s gSa dgdj vkt ls djhc rhu pkj fnu iwoZ HkkbZ cgw rqyh dkSj eq>s Qksu ls crkbZ Fkh vkSj cPpksa ds lkFk dksjck vk xbZ gwa crkbZ Fkh dy fnukad 22-01-2021 dks esjh HkkHkh dV?kksjk vkbZ Fkh rc eq>s esjh HkkHkh crkbZ fd ?kj xbZ Fkh rks njoktk [kqyk Fkk vanj tkdj ns[kh rks NksVw Qkalh ij yVd x;k gS dgdj crkbZ rks eSa vius ifjokj ds lkFk esa ?kVuk dh tkudkjh gksus ij dV?kksjk vk;k rks ns[kk fd esjs HkkbZ cyfoUnj ?kj ds E;kj esa jLlh ls Qkalh yxkdj QkSr gks x;k FkkA esjs HkkbZ fdjk;snkj ls isj'kku Fkk fdjk;snkj okys HkkbZ ls nks fnu yM+kbZ >xM+k dj ekjihV fd;s Fks tks djuk gS dj yks fdjk;s dk iSlk ugha nsaxs vkSj u gh edku [kkyh djsaxs dgdj esjs HkkbZ dks cgqr fnuksa ls ekufld :i ls izrkfM+r fd;s gSaA vkdk'k 'kekZ Hkh fdjk;snkj okyksa dks liksV djrk Fkk vkSj esjk tehu gS edku [kkyh er djuk u gh fdjk;s dk iSlk nsuk dgdj cksyrk Fkk fdjk;snkj okyksa ds fo:) iwoZ esa Hkh edku [kkyh djus dh ckr dks ysdj okn fookn >xM+k gqvk Fkk rc Fkkus esa fdjk;snkjksa ds f[kykQ esa fjiksVZ fd;s Fks ijarq dk;Zokgh ugha gqvk FkkA ?kVuk ds iwoZ fdjk;snkj okyksa dk HkkbZ ls yM+kbZ >xM+k ekjihV gqvk gS vkSj fdjk;snkj ds }kjk edku dk fdjk;k iSlk ugha nsus vkSj u gh edku [kkyh djus ds dkj.k rFkk vkdk'k 'kekZ Hkh mudk i{k ysdj /kedkrk Fkk blh dkj.k ekufld :i ls izrkfM+r gksdj gh Qkalh yxkdj QkSr gqvk gSA Sanjay Yadav- ........edku [kkyh djus dh ckr dks ysdj iwoZ esa geyksxksa dk e`rd ,oa mldh ifRu ls okn fookn gqvk Fkk fookn gksus ds ckn e`rd dh ifRu rqyh ckbZ esjs uke ls Fkkuk esa fjiksVZ dh Fkh fjiksVZ djus ds ckn edku dk fdjk;s dk iSlk c<+kus dks cksyh rc 700 :i;s ls c<+kdj 1000 :i;s edku dk fdjk;k nsrs Fks djhc iakp&N% ekg eSa edku Page 9 of 22 dk fdjk;k 1000 :i;s cyfoUnj ,oa mldh ifr dks fn;k gwa tc rqyh ckbZ esjs f[kykQ fjiksVZ dh Fkh rc eSa vkSj esjh ifRu vkdk'k 'kekZ ds ikl x;s Fks vkSj vkdk'k 'kekZ dks crk;s fd edku [kkyh djus ds fy, cksy jgs gSa rc vkdk'k 'kekZ cksyk Fkk fd esjk tehu gS edku [kkyh er djuk fdjk;k Hkys gh cyfoUnj flag dks ns nsuk dgdj cksyk Fkk mlds ckn ykWdMkmu ds le; gh e`rd cyfoUnj flag geyksxksa dk fctyh dk rkj dks dkV fn;k Fkk rc esjh lkl ;'kksnk Hkh vkdk'k 'kekZ ds ikl xbZ Fkh vkSj vkdk'k 'kekZ dks fctyh dk rkj dkVus dh ckr crkbZ Fkh rc vkdk'k 'kekZ esjh lkl dks cksyk Fkk fd cyfoUnj dk edku esjs HkkbZ fodkl 'kekZ ds uke ij ukih es vk jgk gS fodkl 'kekZ ds ikl pys tkvks ogh dqN djsxk cksyk Fkk fnukad 22-01-2021 ds nks fnu iwoZ e`rd cyfoUnj flag 'kjkc esjh lkl ;'kksnk ckbZ dks xkyh xykSp dj jgk Fkk ,oa viuh ifRu rqyh ckbZ ls Hkh >xM+k fd;k Fkk ml fnu geyksxksa dk cyfoUnj ls okn fookn ugha gqvk FkkA fnukad 22-01-2021 ds lqcg djhc 09%00 cts cyfoUnj flag ?kj esa vdsyk Fkk vkSj esjh lkl ,oa geyksxksa dks xkyh xykSp dj jgk Fkk ftls lqudj esjh lkl ;'kksnk ckbZ cyfoUnj dks cksyh eq>s xkyh D;ksa ns jgs gks tks Hkh ckr gS lh/kk lh/kk ckr djks rc esjh lkl dk lkM+h dk iYyw dks [khap fn;k rc esjh lkl tehu ij fxj xbZ ftldks ns[kdj eSa ,oa esjh Ms<+lkl iw.khZek ;kno NqM+k;s gSa mlds ckn ge yksx ?kj pys x;s geyksx yM+kbZ >xM+k ekjihV ugha fd;s gSA ckn esa cyfoUnj flag dh HkkHkh ds crkus ij irk pyk fd cyfoUnj flag Qkalh yxk fy;k gS
15. The petitioner recorded his statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. wherein he has denied all the allegations levelled against him. The contents of the statement of the petitioner are extracted below:-
"eSa mijksDr irs ij gwa eSa dkaxzsl ikVhZ dk lkekftd dk;ZdrkZ gwa eSa d{kk 12 oha rd i<+k gwa geyksx nks HkkbZ ,d cgu gSa esa nwljs uacj dk HkkbZ gwa rhuksa HkkbZ cguksa dh 'kknh gks xbZ gS cgu 'kknh gksdj llqjky daklkcsy pyh xbZ gSA ge nksuksa HkkbZ vius ifjokj ds lkFk dV?kksjk esa jgrs gSa e`rd cyfoUnj falg ftl edku esa jgrk Fkk og esjs cM+s firkth dk yM+dk fodkl 'kekZ ds uke ij gS bldh tkudkjh eq>s gS vkt ls nks o"kZ iwoZ ml tehu dk lhekadu gqvk Fkk ftlesa e`rd cyfoUnj dk edku fodkl 'kekZ ds uke ds Hkwfe esa lhekadu esa vk;k Fkk bldh tkudkjh eq>s gS e`rd cyfoUnj flag cktkj eksgYyk esa dc ls jg jgk gS bldh tkudkjh eq>s ugha gS eSa e`rd cyfoUnj flag ds edku esa dHkh ugha x;k gwa vkSj u gha lat; ;kno dks edku dk fdjk;k ugha nsuk vkSj u gh edku [kkyh djus dh ckr cksyk gwa ykWdMkmu ds le; lat; ;kno dh lkl ,d ckj esjs ikl vk;h Fkh vkSj eq>s crkbZ Fkh fd cyfoUnj flag fctyh Page 10 of 22 dk rkj dks dkV fn;k gS vkSj 'kjkc ihdj ekjihV djrk gS rc eSa mudks cksyk Fkk ykWdMkmu dk le; gS cyfoUnj ls fuosnu dj ysuk vHkh ykWdMkmu py jgk gS dqN fnu jgus nks mlds ckn tSlk vkiyksxksa dks yxs rks djuk dgdj eSa lat; ;kno dh lkl dks cksyk Fkk eSa e`rd cyfoUnj flag ds edku dHkh ugha x;k gwa vkSj uk gha mlls ,oa mldh ifRu ls vkeus lkeus ckrphr gqbZ gSA fdjk;snkj lat; ;kno dh ifRu gS ;k yM+dh gS bldh tkudkjh eq>s ugha gS ijarq vkt ls djhc lky Hkj iwoZ lat; ;kno ds ?kj ls ,d efgyk esjs ?kj dke djrh Fkh vHkh orZeku esa dke NksM+ nh gS vHkh esjs ;gak cak>hiu fuoklh yfyrk uked efgyk dke djrh gS e`rd yksx fdrus HkkbZ gSa bldh tkudkjh Hkh eq>s ugha gS eSa e`rd dks /kedh pedh fn;k gwa e`rd ,oa mldk ifjokj tks Hkh esjs mij vkjksih yxk;k x;k gS og xyr gS tks vkjksih esjs mij e`rd o mldk ifjokj yxk;k x;k gS mlds laca/k esa cktkj eksgYyk ds xzkeokfl;kas ls dFku fy;k tk;s ;fn eSa e`rd ,oa mldk ifjokj ds ?kj fdlh Hkh izdkj dk vkuk tkuk ;k /kedh pedh ckrphr ;k yM+kbZ >xM+k fd;k gwa rks eksgYys ds yksx eq>s ns[ks gksaxs ;k yM+kbZ >xM+k djrs lqus gksaxs ;gh esjk c;ku gS eSa tSlk crk;k fy[kk x;k gSA"
16. On the basis of complaint made by respondent No. 2, FIR has been registered against the petitioner. On the above factual matrix, it is expedient to extract the FIR registered against the petitioner and the relevant para thereof is extracted below:-
"मम थथानथा कटघघोरथा मम थथानथा प्रभथाररी ननररीक्षक कके पद पर पदस्थ हह ह, ससूचक शरीमतरी ननमर लथा रथाजपसूत सथानकन बथाहककीममोंगरथा थथानथा बथाहककीममोंगरथा जजलथा कघोरबथा दथारथा अपनके दकेवर ममृतक बलनवन्दर जसहह नपतथा स्व. धरम जसहह जथाट उम्र 40 वरर सथानकन बथाजथार मघोहलथा वथारर क. 3 कटघघोरथा कके दथारथा नदनथाहक घटनथा 22.01.2021 कके प्रथातत 08:00 बजके सके 10:00 बजके कके मध्य अपनके ननवथास स्थथान बथाजथार मघोहलथा मम सस्थत घर कके म्यथार मम रस्सरी सके फथाहसरी लगथाकर आत्महत्यथा करनके ककी ममौजखिक ससूचनथा 22.01.2021 कघो दजर करथानके पर मगर क. 11/2021 धथारथा 174 जथाफमौ कथायम कर नववकेचनथा पहचनथामथा कथायर वथाहरी मनहलथा प्रधथान आरक्षक 356 अननतथा खिकेस दथारथा ककी गई जघो घटनथा स्थल मम ममृतक बलनवन्दर जसहह दथारथा ममृत्यय पसूवर जलखिथा हह आ सयसथाईर नघोट प्रथाप्त हघोनके पर नवजधवत जप्त नकयथा गयथा तथथा ममृतक कके पररजनमों जजसमम उसककी पसत्न शरीमतरी तयलरी बथाई एवह बडथा भथाई जसवहत जसहह एवह ससूचक कके कथन जलयके गयके शव कथा पघोस्ट मथाटर म करथायथा गयथा जघो रथाक्टर दथारथा ममृतक ककी ममृत्यय Page 11 of 22 फथाहसरी लगथानके सके दम घयटनके कके कथारण एवह प्रकमृनत सयसथाईरल लकेखिबद नकयथा गयथा ममृतक दथारथा अपनके सयसथाईर नघोट मम नकरथायकेदथार सहजय यथादव, पसूणर्णीमथा यथादव तथथा यशघोदथा बथाई एवह प्रमयखि सहयघोगरी कके रूप मम आकथाश शमथार कथा नथाम उलकेजखित नकयथा गयथा हहै तत्सहबहध मम अनथावकेदकमों सके भरी पसूछतथाछ कर कथन जलयथा गयथा जघो ममृतक कके ननवथास स्थथान मम सहजय यथादव कथा नकरथायकेदथार हघोनथा और उसकके दथारथा मकथान खिथालरी करनके हकेतय कहनके पर मकथान खिथालरी नहहीं करनके पर आपसरी नववथाद एवह रहजजश हघोनथा इसरी कके पररणथाम स्वरूप नदनथाहक घटनथा 22.01.2021 कघो कररीब 09:00 बजके नदन मम उसकके सथाथ यशघोदथा बथाई कथा वथाद नववथाद गथालरी गयप्तथार हघोनथा भरी पथायथा गयथा उक सयसथाईर नघोट हस्तजलनप नवशकेरज्ञ रथायपयर कघो पररीक्षण हकेतय भकेजथा गयथा थथा जघो कयछ नबन्दओ य ह पर स्कसूटनरी कर पसूनतर हकेतय वथापस नकयथा गयथा हहै जघो पसूनतर कर पयनत भकेजथा जथानथा शकेर हहै मगर सदर मम चसूहनक अभरी तक कके सहपसूणर नववकेचनथा कथायर वथाहरी पर ममृतक बलनवन्दर जसहह कके ननवथास स्थथान कथा आधथा नहस्सथा मम नननमर त मकथान कघो आरघोपरी सहजय यथादव नकरथायके पर लकेकर पररवथार सनहत ननवथासरत हहै और ममृतक दथारथा नकरथायथा मथाहगनके तथथा खिथालरी करनके हकेतय कहनके पर आपस मम नववथाद तथथा रहजजश थथा सहजय यथादव ककी पसत्न अनयसयईयथा यथादव पसूवर मम आकथाश शमथार कके यहथाह कथाम करतरी थरी इसजलए आकथाश शमथार भरी उनकथा पक्षधर हघो गयथा थथा और मकथान खिथालरी नहहीं करनके हकेतय उन्हम अपनथा सहरक्षण दके रहथा थथा इस प्रकथार उक नकरथायके कके मकथान कके उलकेजखित नववथाद कके कथारण हरी ममृतक दथारथा प्रतथाडनथा कके फलस्वरूप फथाहसरी लगथाकर आत्महत्यथा करनथा प्रतरीत हघोतथा हहै जलहथाजथा मथामलके मम सहपसूणर नववकेचनथा कथायर वथाहरी एवह मकेरके दथारथा नववकेचनथा तस्दरीक पर आरघोपरीगण सहजय यथादव एवह रकेढसथास पसूणर्णीमथा यथादव तथथा सथास यशघोदथा बथाई एवह सहयघोगरी आकश शमथार सथानकन बथाजथार मघोहलथा वथारर नह. 3 कटघघोरथा कके नवरूद प्रथम दृष्टयथा अपरथाध धथारथा 306, 34 भथादनव कथा अपरथाध पथायके जथानके सके अपरथाध सदर कथायम कर नववकेचनथा कथायर वथाहरी मम जलयथा गयथा"
17. Before this Court evaluates the contents of the FIR, a reference to Section 306 of the IPC is necessary. Section 306 stipulates that if a person commits suicide ―whoever abets the commission of such suicide shall be punished with imprisonment extending up to 10 years.
Page 12 of 2218. Section 107 is comprised within Chapter V of the IPC, which is titled of abetment. Section 107 provides 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 willful misrepresentation, or by willful 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 authorised by a warrant from a Court of Justice to apprehend Z, B, knowing that fact and also that C is not Z, willfully represents to A that C is Z, and thereby 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.
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."
19. The first segment of Section 107 defines abetment as the instigation of a person to do a particular thing. The second segment defines it with reference to engaging in a conspiracy with one or more other persons for the doing of a thing, and an act or illegal omission in pursuance of the conspiracy. Under the third segment, abetment is founded on intentionally aiding the doing of a thing either by an act or omission. These provisions have been construed specifically in the context of Section 306 to which a reference is necessary in order to furnish the legal Page 13 of 22 foundation for assessing the contents of the complaint. These provisions have been construed in the earlier judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu Vs. State of West Bengal20, which reads as under:-
"10. The legal position as regards Sections 306 IPC which is long settled was recently reiterated by this Court in the case of Randhir Singh v. State of Punjab (2004) 13 SCC 129 as follows in paras 12 and 13:
"12. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding that person in doing of a thing. In cases of conspiracy also it would involve that mental process of entering into conspiracy for the doing of that thing. More active role which can be described as instigating or aiding the doing of a thing is required before a person can be said to be abetting the commission of offence under Section 306 IPC.
13. In State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal [(1994) 1 SCC 73] this Court has observed that the courts should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end the life by committing suicide. If it transpires to the court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty."
11. Further in the case of Kishori Lal v. State of M.P. (2007) 10 SCC 797, this Court gave a clear exposition of Section 107 IPC when it observed as follows in para 6:
"6. Section 107 IPC defines abetment of a thing. The offence of abetment is a separate and distinct offence provided in IPC. A person, 20 (2010) 1 SCC 707 Page 14 of 22 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."
[See also Kishangiri Mangalgiri Swami v. State of Gujarat (2009) 4 SCC 52]
12.......It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable.
20. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in S. S. Chheena Vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan21, held as under:-
"25. 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 the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained.The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court is clear 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 the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the
21 (2010) 12 SCC 190 Page 15 of 22 deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.
21. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Madan Mohan Singh Vs. State of Gujarat22, specifically considered the case which arose in the context of a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. where the High Court had dismissed the petition for quashing an FIR registered for offences under Sections 306 and 294(B) of the IPC. In that case, the FIR was registered on a complaint of the spouse of the deceased who was working as a driver with the accused. The driver had been rebuked by the employer and was later found to be dead on having committed suicide. A suicide note was relied upon the FIR, the contents of which indicated that the driver had not been given a fixed vehicle unlike other drivers besides which he had other complaints including the deduction of 15 days' wages from his salary. The suicide note named the accused-appellant. Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held as under:-
"10. We are convinced that there is absolutely nothing in this suicide note or the FIR which would even distantly be viewed as an offence much less under Section 306 IPC. We could not find anything in the FIR or in the so-called suicide note which could be suggested as abetment to commit suicide. In such matters there must be an allegation that the accused had instigated the deceased to commit suicide or secondly, had engaged with some other person in a conspiracy and lastly, that the accused had in any way aided any act or illegal omission to bring about the suicide.
11. In spite of our best efforts and microscopic examination of the suicide note and the FIR, all that we find is that the suicide note is a rhetoric document in the nature of a departmental complaint. It also suggests some mental imbalance on the part of the deceased which he himself describes as depression. In the so-called suicide note, it cannot be said that the accused ever intended that the driver under him should commit suicide or should end his life and did anything in that behalf. Even if it is accepted that the accused changed the duty of the driver or that the accused
22 (2010) 8 SCC 628 Page 16 of 22 asked him not to take the keys of the car and to keep the keys of the car in the office itself, it does not mean that the accused intended or knew that the driver should commit suicide because of this.‖ Dealing with the provisions of Section 306 of the IPC and the meaning of abetment within the meaning of Section 107, the Court observed:
12. In order to bring out an offence under Section 306 IPC specific abetment as contemplated by Section 107 IPC on the part of the accused with an intention to bring about the suicide of the person concerned as a result of that abetment is required.
The intention of the accused to aid or to instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a must for this particular offence under Section 306 IPC. We are of the clear opinion that there is no question of there being any material for offence under Section 306 IPC either in the FIR or in the so-called suicide note. The Court noted that the suicide note expressed a state of anguish of the deceased and ―cannot be depicted as expressing anything intentional on the part of the accused that the deceased might commit suicide‖. Reversing the judgement of the High Court, the petition under Section 482 was allowed and the FIR was quashed.
22. The Constitutional Bench of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Common Cause (A Registered Society) Vs. Union of India & another23, has examined the provisions of Section 107 of IPC and held as under:-
"458. For abetting an offence, the person abetting must have intentionally aided the commission of the crime. Abetment requires an instigation to commit or intentionally aiding the commission of a crime. It presupposes a course of conduct or action which (in the context of the present discussion) facilitates another to end life. Hence abetment of suicide is an offence expressly punishable under Sections 305 and 306 IPC."
23. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in M Arjunan Vs. State (Represented by its Inspector of Police)24, has held as under:-
"7. The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 IPC are: (i) the abetment; (ii) the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet 23 (2018) 5 SCC 1 24 (2019) 3 SCC 315 Page 17 of 22 the deceased to commit suicide. The act of the accused, however, insulting the deceased by using abusive language will not, by itself, constitute the abetment of suicide. There should be evidence capable of suggesting that the accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Unless the ingredients of instigation/ abetment to commit suicide are satisfied the accused cannot be convicted under Section 306 IPC."
24. Similarly, Hon'ble the Supreme Court in another judgment passed in Ude Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana 25, expounded on the ingredients of Section 306 of the IPC, and the factors to be considered in determining whether a case falls within the ken of the aforesaid provision, in the following terms:
"38. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be a proof of direct or indirect act/s of incitement to the commission of suicide. It could hardly be disputed that the question of cause of a suicide, particularly in the context of an offence of abetment of suicide, remains a vexed one, involving multifaceted and complex attributes of human behaviour and responses/reactions. In the case of accusation for abetment of suicide, the Court would be looking for cogent and convincing proof of the act/s of incitement to the commission of suicide. In the case of suicide, mere allegation of harassment of the deceased by another person would not suffice unless there be such action on the part of the accused which compels the person to commit suicide; and such an offending action ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence. Whether a person has abetted in the commission of suicide by another or not, could only be gathered from the facts and circumstances of each case.
39. For the purpose of finding out if a person has abetted commission of suicide by another, the consideration would be if the accused is guilty of the act of instigation of the act of suicide. As explained and reiterated by this Court in the decisions above-referred, instigation means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. 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,
25 Criminal Appeal No. 233 of 2010 (decided on 25.07.2019) Page 18 of 22 it may not be safe to hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide. But, on the other hand, if the accused by his acts and by his continuous course of conduct creates a situation which leads the deceased perceiving no other option except to commit suicide, the case may fall within the four- corners of Section 306 IPC. If the accused plays an active role in tarnishing the self-esteem and self-respect of the victim, which eventually draws the victim to commit suicide, the accused may be held guilty of abetment of suicide. The question of mens rea on the part of the accused in such cases would be examined with reference to the actual acts and deeds of the accused and if the acts and deeds are only of such nature where the accused intended nothing more than harassment or snap show of anger, a particular case may fall short of the offence of abetment of suicide. However, if the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words or deeds until the deceased reacted or was provoked, a particular case may be that of abetment of suicide. Such being the matter of delicate analysis of human behaviour, each case is required to be examined on its own facts, while taking note of all the surrounding factors having bearing on the actions and psyche of the accused and the deceased.
25. The FIR has been lodged by respondent No. 2, who is elder brother's wife of the deceased, the statements of the brother and wife of deceased were recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. which clearly stated that there was quarrel on 20.02.2021 between deceased and other co-accused and the witnesses have also stated that the petitioner used to visit their house and was granting protection to the tenant not to vacate the house and also not to pay the rent. The petitioner used to threat the deceased, therefore, deceased has committed suicide. Though its authenticity and correctness have to be examined by the trial court during trial of the case, the accused has denied all the allegations made in his statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., therefore, authenticity of the statement recorded by the petitioner has to be examined during course of trial by the trial Court, correctness of the same cannot be examined while deciding the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of Page 19 of 22 India.
26. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Narayan Malhari Thorat (Supra), has held as under:-
"12. We now consider the facts of the present case. There are definite allegations that the first respondent would keep on calling the wife of the victim on her mobile and keep harassing her which allegations are supported by the statements of the mother and the wife of the victim recorded during investigation. The record shows that 3-4 days prior to the suicide there was an altercation between the victim and the first respondent. In the light of these facts, coupled with the fact that the suicide note made definite allegation against first respondent, the High Court was not justified in entering into question whether the first respondent had the requisite intention to aid or instigate or abate the commission of suicide. At this juncture when the investigation was yet to be completed and charge- sheet, if any, was yet to be filed, the High Court ought not to have gone into the aspect whether there was requisite mental element or intention on part of the respondent."
27. In the present case, prima facie, it is apparent that on 20.01.2021, there was altercation between the deceased and the accused persons and same has been mentioned by the deceased in suicidal note, therefore, prima facie material is available against the petitioner, therefore, at this juncture, the FIR cannot be quashed by this Court while hearing the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
28. In M. Mohan (Supra) & Vaijnath (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that to convict a person Section 306 of IPC, there should be clear mens rea to commit the offence, it is also required an active act or direct act which lead the deceased to commit suicide seeking option. Hon'ble the Supreme Court has further held that the act must have been intended to push deceased into a such position that he/she commits suicide. If we examine the statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., and contents of the FIR, it is quite clear that the accused persons have prima facie compelled the deceased to commit Page 20 of 22 suicide, though the correctness and evidenciary value of the statement have to be examined during trial of the case. As such, at this juncture, there is no material for this Court to quash the criminal proceedings.
29. In Sandeep Mishra (Supra), the Coordinate Bench of this Court has held that there is no nexus and proximity with the conduct and behaviour of the petitioner (accused) with that of the suicide committed by the deceased, whereas in the present case, there is direct allegation against the petitioner and other co-accused, therefore, the case of Sandeep Mishra (Supra) will not helpful to the petitioner as it is distinguishable from the facts of the present case.
30. In Sunita Bharadwaj (Supra), the charge under Section 306 of IPC has not been framed as prima facie no material is available on record for framing of charge under Section 306 of IPC, which is not the present case as there is material against the petitioner though its authenticity has to be examined by the trial Court.
31. In Rajendra Kumar @ Guddu Thakur (Supra), there is no evidence regarding instigation made by the applicant and also there is no evidence regarding any conspiracy for the purpose of abetting, whereas in the case on hand, there is direct allegation against the petitioner, therefore, the present case is entirely distinguishable from the facts of this case.
32. In Rajendra Kumar Dadsena (Supra), the deceased was in great stress and contents of suicidal note would reveal that there is no ingredient to frame a case against the applicant for abetment of suicide, whereas in the present case ingredient of abetment of suicide is available against the petitioner, therefore, the present case is entirely distinguishable from the facts of this case
33. In Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar (Supra), the story being narrated to the deceased by the mother of the deceased asking him to bring back his wife to avoid any police case against them, Page 21 of 22 the deceased went to the house of the parents of the appellant followed by a quarrel between them. Thereafter, the deceased returned alone and told his brothers and other acquaintances that the appellant had threatened and abused him by using filthy words, whereas in the present case, there is direct allegation against the petitioner and other co-accused persons, as such, judgment in case of Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar (Supra) is distinguishable from the facts of the present case.
34. In Gurcharan Singh (Supra), the case arose out of the appellate stage where the evidence and material have been examined by the trial Court and thereafter, by Hon'ble the High Court and Hon'ble the Supreme Court, whereas, in the present case no such circumstance is available, therefore, this judgment cited by the petitioner is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Even otherwise, the stand taken by the petitioner that there is no material available on record to prima facie establish ingredients of abetment and instigation are made out against the petitioner are his defence which can be examined by the trial Court at time of trial, therefore, the present petition is without any substance and merits, which is liable to be dismissed.
35. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Kaptan Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others26 has held as under:-
"9.2 In the case of Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar (Supra) after considering the decisions of this Court in Bhajan Lal (Supra), it is held by this Court that exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings is an exception and not a rule. It is further observed that inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. though wide is to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution, only when such exercise is justified by tests specifically laid down in section itself. It is further observed that appreciation of evidence is not permissible at the stage of quashing of proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Similar view has been expressed by this Court in the case of Arvind Khanna (Supra), Managipet (Supra) and in the 26 AIR 2021 SC 3931 Page 22 of 22 case of XYZ (Supra), referred to hereinabove.
9.3 Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand, we are of the opinion that the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in quashing the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C."
36. In view of the above, it can be held that no case is made out for interference by this Court, therefore, the present petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed.
37. However, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the case. The facts have been considered for adjudication of the present writ petition. The trial Court is directed to proceed further, in accordance with law, without there being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court while deciding this writ petition. The trial Court is free to apply its mind on the basis of material collected during investigation.
Sd/-
(Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Arun