Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jayant Karmarkar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 October, 2021
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C.No.34351/2019
(Jayant Karmarkar Vs. State of M.P. and others )
Gwalior, Dated:-26.10.2021
Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, learned counsel for petitioner.
Shri Kaushlendra Singh Tomar, learned Public Prosecutor for
respondent/State.
1. In this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. inherent powers of this Court are invoked seeking quashment of the FIR and consequential charge-sheet arising out of Crime No.437/2019 registered at Police Station-Bahodapur, District Gwalior alleging offence punishable u/S.306 IPC against the sole accused the petitioner herein.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner is heard on the question of admission and so also for final disposal.
3. Learned counsel submits that a bare reading of allegation contained in FIR along with the material collected during investigation in the charge-sheet does not make out even a prima facie case of abetment to suicide as defined in the IPC. Reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in the cases of Dineshchandra Vs. State of M.P., reported 1988-II MPWN 84, Nanka Vs. State of M.P., reported in 1999 (1) MPWN 52, Ashok Kumar Sawadiya Vs. State of M.P., 2001 (1) MPWN 93, Laxmi Prasad Vishwakarma Vs. State of M.P., reported in 2003 (1) MPWN 34, Vishnu Prasad Vs. State of M.P., 2005 (II) MPWN 112, Girja 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.No.34351/2019 (Jayant Karmarkar Vs. State of M.P. and others ) Shankar Vs. State of M.P., reported in 2006 (III) MPWN 116, Prakashchand Vs. State of M.P., reported in 2007 (1) MPWN 20, Pramod Kumar and another Vs. State of M.P., 2007 (II) MPWN 26, Babbi @ Jitendra and others Vs. State of M.P, reported in 2008 (III) MPWN 8, Nirmal Jain and others Vs. State of M.P., reported in 2008 (II) MPWN 66, Vijay Tiwari Vs. State of M.P., reported in 2008 (II) MPWN 118, Munnalal Jain Vs. State of M.P., 2009 (III) MPWN 79, Hukum Singh Yadav and another Vs. State of M.P., reported in 2011 (1) MPWN 126, Md. Faizan Ahmad @ Kalu Vs. State of Bihar, 2013 (1) MPWN 72, State of M.P. Vs. Keshlal, 2013 (I) MPWN 71, Karan Jatiya Vs. State of M.P., reported in 2015 (III) MPWN 66, Waseem Vs. State of M.P., reported in 2015 (III) MPWN 73, Ankit Gupta Vs. State of M.P., reported in 2015 (II) MPWN 65, Anil Jain and another Vs. State of M.P., reported in 2017 (1) MPWN 46, Phool Singh Vs. State of M.P, reported in 2017 (1) MPWN 47, Mohit Jain and another Vs. State of M.P. and another, reported in 2018 (III) MPWN 7, Nitin Sharma Devmurari Vs. State of M.P, reported in 2018 (III) MPWN 36, Manish Dubey Vs. State of M.P., reported in 2018 (III) MPWN, 69 and Rajesh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (Cr.R.No.3155/2019 decided on 9th July, 2019),
4. To appreciate the contentions of learned counsel for petitioner 3 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.No.34351/2019 (Jayant Karmarkar Vs. State of M.P. and others ) it would be apt to analyze the allegations in the FIR. 4.1 On the date of the incident i.e. 30.6.2019 the deceased Dinesh Khandelwal had gone to the petitioner's house to seek return of the amount of Rs.4,50,000/- which the petitioner had borrowed from the deceased. An argument took place between the petitioner and the deceased on the said issue whereafter the deceased piqued by the said arguments and altercation purchased sulphas powder and consumed the same. He died soon thereafter on the spot. Inquest was registered in which the statements of wife of the deceased, Smt. Preeti Khandelwal and Pradeep Khandelwal were recorded which disclose the aforesaid incident leading to registration of impugned FIR on 3.7.2019. The investigation was conducted and statement of prosecution witnesses Smt. Preeti Khandelwal, S.K. Singh, Chirag, Pradeep Khandelwal, Mukesh, Vinayak Singh & Bhupendra Singh, were recorded.
4.2 A plain reading of all these statements u/S. 161 Cr.P.C. of the aforesaid witnesses reiterate the allegations as contained in the FIR.
4.3 In the statement u/S.161 Cr.P.C. of Smt. Preeti Khandelwal, wife of deceased additional revelation has been made that it was the petitioner who took the deceased to the hospital and also that when she went to the spot on receiving telephonic message from her 4 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.No.34351/2019 (Jayant Karmarkar Vs. State of M.P. and others ) husband that he is not feeling well, the petitioner abused Smt. Preeti Khandelwal on her arrival at the spot.
4.4 The statement of the deceased was also recorded on the date of incident before his death in which he stated that at 11:00 AM in the morning he had gone to his friend's (petitioner) house to ask for return of the loan extended by him to the petitioner and on this issue arguments took place between the petitioner and the deceased whereafter the deceased revealed that he consumed sulphas powder after purchasing the same and that the petitioner took him to the hospital. The deceased in his statement also revealed that he consumed sulphas powder outside the house of petitioner.
5. On the basis of the aforesaid material what is evident is that on the issue of demand of refund of loan by the deceased arguments took place between the petitioner and the deceased which in all probability disturbed the deceased who came out of the house of petitioner and consumed sulphas powder after purchasing the same from nearby shop.
5.1 On an overall assessment of the evidence placed on record the live and proximate link between the cause and the suicide appears to be not only weak, but missing. The allegation do not at any stage reveal that the arguments between the deceased and the petitioner and the abusive words, if any, uttered by the petitioner were with an 5 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.No.34351/2019 (Jayant Karmarkar Vs. State of M.P. and others ) intention to instigate the deceased to commit suicide.
6. The offence of section 306 IPC is directly founded upon the concept of abetment. If a person commits suicide and cause of death can be attributable to another person with the aid or instigation doing or omitting to do something individually or in conspiracy with some other person or intentionally aiding by illegal act or omission, then the person causing instigation, doing or omitting to do or aiding can be held responsible for abetment to suicide. The Apex Court has succinctly explained the parameters of section 306 IPC in one of it's decision in the case of Gangula Mohan Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2010) 1 SCC 750, relevant portion of which is reproduced below:-
"6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the conviction of the appellant is totally unsustainable because no ingredients of offence under Section 306 of the Code can be made out in the facts and circumstances of this case. It would be profitable to set out Section 306 of the Code:
"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 extent to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."
7. From the aforesaid analysis, this court is of the considered view that the material or evidence collected by the prosecution do 6 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.No.34351/2019 (Jayant Karmarkar Vs. State of M.P. and others ) not constitute even on prima facie basis the fundamental ingredients of the offence of abetment to suicide. There has neither been any instigation nor aid or engagement in any conspiracy or wilful misrepresentation or concealment of any material fact on the part of the petitioner.
8. In the context of above discussion continuance of the prosecution in shape of the S.T.No.323/2019 pending before the learned Trial Judge would be exercised in futility as acquittal is fate accompli.
9. The impugned prosecution would entail wastage of time and energy not only of the Trial Court but further lead to pain and anguish to the petitioner accused.
10. Consequently, this petition stands allowed and the FIR bearing Crime No.437/2019 registered at Police Station Bahodapur, District Gwalior alleging offences punishable u/S.306 IPC along with charge- sheet and the S.T.No.323/2019 pending before the learned Trial Judge against the petitioner are quashed.
E-copy/Certified copy as per rules/directions.
(Sheel Nagu) Judge Pawar* ASHISH PAWAR 2021.10.29 18:57:55 +05'30'