Madhya Pradesh High Court
Devendra @Pappu Jaiswal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:19759
1 CRA-8162-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 12th OF MARCH, 2026
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 8162 of 2025
DEVENDRA @ PAPPU JAISWAL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Ayush Tiwari - Advocate for appellant.
Shri Mukesh Shukla - Public Prosecutor for State.
ORDER
This criminal appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed by the appellant/accused assailing the order dated 16.05.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Betul (M.P.) in SC ATR No. 175 of 2024 whereby the charges for the offences punishable under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and read with Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 have been framed against the appellant/accused.
2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the Assistant Sub- Inspector, Police Station Chicholi, District Betul received an information from complainant Santu, son of Jhabli Dhurve to the effect that deceased Makal Singh Dhurve had committed suicide by hanging himself in his house. Upon receiving the said information, the police registered Merg No.106/2024 Signature Not Verified Signed by: TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Signing time: 02-04-2026 11:02:17 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:19759 2 CRA-8162-2025 and initiated an inquiry. During the course of the merg inquiry, the police reached the spot and found the deceased Makal Singh Dhurve lying inside his house. During the proceedings of the dead body Panchayatnama, a suicide note was recovered from the pocket of the shirt of the deceased. In the said suicide note, it was stated that Harish Yadav, resident of Malajpur and Pappu Jaiswal (present appellant), resident of Chicholi had been harassing and torturing him in connection with certain monetary transactions. It was further mentioned that Saleem Khan, resident of Chicholi had not paid an amount of Rs.1,10,000/-, due to which the "Gitti Wala" was also pressurizing and harassing him. On the basis of the said suicide note and the merg inquiry, the police registered an FIR under Crime No.465/2024 for the offence punishable under Section 108 of the B.N.S., 2023 read with Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the accused persons. After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the appellant and co-accused Saleem Khan and Harish Yadav.
3. The learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Betul by impugned order dated 16.05.2025 has framed charges against appellant for the offences punishable under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and read with Section 3(2)
(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the present appellant has submitted that, as per the prosecution case itself, the deceased allegedly left Signature Not Verified Signed by: TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Signing time: 02-04-2026 11:02:17 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:19759 3 CRA-8162-2025 behind a suicide note, which has been filed as Annexure A-3. It is pointed out that the said suicide note is stated to have been written on 10.10.2024, whereas the deceased allegedly committed suicide on 14.10.2024. As per the contents of the suicide note, the allegation against the present appellant is that despite the deceased having already repaid the entire amount, the appellant had allegedly added interest of Rs.1,20,000/- and on account of the said monetary transaction, the deceased was annoyed by the appellant and co- accused Saleem Khan and Harish Yadav, as a result of which he committed suicide.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhinav Mohan Delkar vs. The State of Maharashtra and others (Criminal Appeal No.2177-2185 of 2024, decided on 18.08.2025) and in the case of Mohit Singhal & anr. vs. The State of Uttarakhand and ors., (2024) 1 SCC 417 and the orders passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the cases of Ajit Singh Kulhar and others vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others (Criminal Revision No.6428 of 2024, dated 17.06.2025), Rajesh vs. The State of Madhya Prades h (Criminal Revision No.3857 of 2022, dated 26.04.2023), Prateek Gautam vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh (Criminal Revision No.1566 of 2023, dated 14.07.2023) and in the case of Premchand vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others (Criminal Revision No.56 of 2024, dated 25.07.2024) wherein it has been consistently held that where the dispute between the deceased and the accused arises out of a monetary transaction and the allegation is that the accused was pressurizing or harassing the deceased for recovery of the said Signature Not Verified Signed by: TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Signing time: 02-04-2026 11:02:17 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:19759 4 CRA-8162-2025 amount, the same, by itself, does not constitute the offence punishable under Section 108 of the BNS, 2023. It is submitted that in such circumstances, the essential ingredients of instigation or abetment, as contemplated under Section 45 of the BNS, 2023 are not made out against the present appellant.
6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the prayer made in the present appeal and submitted that the issues raised by the appellant pertain to the trial. It is contended that there are prima facie allegations on record regarding instigation and abetment attributed to the present appellant and, therefore, the same cannot be adjudicated at the stage of charge. It is further submitted that the statement of the wife of the deceased also discloses that the deceased was annoyed by the present appellant for recovery of money. According to the learned counsel for the State, the conduct attributed to the appellant squarely falls within the ambit of instigation and abetment to commit suicide. It is thus contended that, on the basis of the material available on record, the learned trial Court has rightly framed the charge against the appellant and, therefore, no interference is called for with the impugned order of framing charge.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have perused the material available on record.
8. The law of framing of charge is well settled and only a prima facie case has to be placed before the Court for enabling it to frame the charge but as far as Section 306 of IPC is concerned, in the case of Jaydeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda and others Vs State of Gujarat, (2025) 2 SCC116 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in paragraphs 21 to 23 and 26 to 29 as under :
"21. Section 306 IPC provides for punishment for the offence of Signature Not Verified Signed by: TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Signing time: 02-04-2026 11:02:17 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:19759 5 CRA-8162-2025 abetment of suicide. It has to be read with Section 107IPC which defines the act of "abetment". The provisions read as follows:
"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."
"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. 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 facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act."
22. Section 306 IPC penalises those who abet the act of suicide by another. For a person to be charged under this section, the prosecution must establish that the accused contributed to the act of suicide by the deceased. This involvement must satisfy one of the three conditions outlined in Section 107IPC. These conditions include the accused instigated or encouraged the individual to commit suicide, conspiring with others to ensure that the act was carried out, or engaging in conduct (or neglecting to act) that directly led to the person taking his/her own life.
23. For a conviction under Section 306 IPC, it is a well-established legal principle that the presence of clear mens rea--the intention to abet the act--is essential. Mere harassment, by itself, is not sufficient to find an accused guilty of abetting suicide. The prosecution must demonstrate an active or direct action by the accused that led the deceased to take his/her own life. The element of mens rea cannot simply be presumed or inferred; it must be evident and explicitly discernible. Without this, the foundational requirement for establishing abetment under the law is not satisfied, underscoring the necessity of a deliberate and conspicuous intent to Signature Not Verified Signed by: TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Signing time: 02-04-2026 11:02:17 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:19759 6 CRA-8162-2025 provoke or contribute to the act of suicide.
26. The essential ingredients to be fulfilled in order to bring a case under Section 306IPC are:
(i) the abetment;
(ii) the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide.
27. Thus, to bring a case under this provision, it is imperative that the accused intended by their act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Thus, in cases of death of a wife, the court must meticulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as assess the evidence presented. It is necessary to determine whether the cruelty or harassment inflicted on the victim left them with no other option but to end their life. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be concrete proof of either direct or indirect acts of incitement that led to the suicide. Mere allegations of harassment are insufficient to establish guilt. For a conviction, there must be evidence of a positive act by the accused, closely linked to the time of the incident, that compelled or drove the victim to commit suicide.
28. It is essential to establish that the death was a result of suicide and that the accused actively abetted its commission. This can involve instigating the victim or engaging in specific actions that facilitated the act. The prosecution must prove beyond doubt that the accused played a definitive role in the abetment. Without clear evidence of an active role in provoking or assisting the suicide, a conviction under Section 306IPC cannot be sustained.
29. The act of abetment must be explicitly demonstrated through actions or behaviours of the accused that directly contributed to the victim's decision to take their own life. Harassment, in itself, does not suffice unless it is accompanied by deliberate acts of incitement or facilitation. Furthermore, these actions must be proximate to the time of the suicide, showcasing a clear connection between the accused's behaviour and the tragic outcome. It is only through the establishment of this direct link that a conviction under Section 306 IPC can be justified. The prosecution bears the burden of proving this active involvement to hold the accused accountable for the alleged abetment of suicide. The same position has been laid down by this Court in several judgments, such as:
(i) M. Mohan v. State ;
(ii) Amalendu Pal v. State of W.B.;Signature Not Verified Signed by: TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Signing time: 02-04-2026 11:02:17
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:19759 7 CRA-8162-2025
(iii) Kamalakar v. State of Karnataka."
9. In the case of Abhinav Mohan Delkar (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed in paragraphs 21 to 23 as under :
"21. It was held that abetment involves the mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing and without a positive act on the part of the accused, in aiding or instigating or abetting the deceased to commit suicide, a conviction cannot be sustained.
22. What comes out essentially from the various decisions herein before cited is that, even if there is allegation of constant harassment, continued over a long period; to bring in the ingredients of Section 306 read with Section 107, still there has to be a proximate prior act to clearly find that the suicide was the direct consequence of such continuous harassment, the last proximate incident having finally driven the subject to the extreme act of taking one's life. Figuratively, 'the straw that broke the camel's back'; that final event, in a series, that occasioned a larger, sudden impact resulting in the unpredictable act of suicide. What drove the victim to that extreme act, often depends on individual predilections; but whether it is goaded, definitively and demonstrably, by a particular act of another, is the test to find mens rea. Merely because the victim was continuously harassed and at one point, he or she succumbed to the extreme act of taking his life cannot by itself result in finding a positive instigation constituting abetment. Mens rea cannot be gleaned merely by what goes on in the mind of the victim.
23. The victim may have felt that there was no alternative or option, but to take his life, because of what another person did or said; which cannot lead to a finding of mens rea and resultant abetment on that other person. What constitutes mens rea is the intention and purpose of the alleged perpetrator as discernible from the conscious acts or words and the attendant circumstances, which in all probability could lead to such an end. The real intention of the accused and whether he intended by his action to at least possibly drive the victim to suicide, is the sure test. Did the thought of goading the victim to suicide occur in the mind of the accused or whether it can be inferred from the facts and circumstances arising in the case, as the true test of mens rea would depend on the facts of each case. The social status, the community setting, the relationship between the parties and other myriad factors would distinguish one case from another. However harsh or severe the harassment, unless there is a conscious deliberate intention, mens rea, to drive another person to suicidal death, there cannot be a finding of abetment under Section 306."Signature Not Verified Signed by: TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Signing time: 02-04-2026 11:02:17
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:19759 8 CRA-8162-2025
10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mahendra Awase vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No.221 of 2025, dated 17.01.2025) has held as under:-
"18. As has been held hereinabove, to satisfy the requirement of instigation the accused by his act or omission or by a continued course of conduct should have created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide. It was also held that a word uttered in a fit of anger and emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.
19. Applying the above principle to the facts of the present case, we are convinced that there are no grounds to frame charges under Section 306 IPC against the appellant. This is so even if we take the prosecution's case on a demurrer and at its highest. A reading of the suicide note reveals that the appellant was asking the deceased to repay the loan guaranteed by the deceased and advanced to Ritesh Malakar. It could not be said that the appellant by performing his duty of realising outstanding loans at the behest of his employer can be said to have instigated the deceased to commit suicide. Equally so, with the transcripts, including the portions emphasised hereinabove. Even taken literally, it could not be said that the appellant intended to instigate the commission of suicide. It could certainly not be said that the appellant by his acts created circumstances which left the deceased with no other option except to commit suicide. Viewed from the armchair of the appellant, the exchanges with the deceased, albeit heated, are not with intent to leave the deceased with no other option but to commit suicide. This is the conclusion we draw taking a realistic approach, keeping the context and the situation in mind. Strangely, the FIR has also been lodged after a delay of two months and twenty days.
20. This Court has, over the last several decades, repeatedly reiterated the higher threshold, mandated by law for Section 306 IPC [Now Section 108 read with Section 45 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023] to be attracted. They however seem to have followed more in the breach. Section 306 IPC appears to be casually and too readily resorted to by the police. While the persons involved in genuine cases where the threshold is met should not be spared, the provision should not be deployed against individuals, only to assuage the immediate feelings of the distraught family of the deceased. The conduct of the proposed accused and the deceased, their interactions and conversations preceding the unfortunate death Signature Not Verified Signed by: TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Signing time: 02-04-2026 11:02:17 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:19759 9 CRA-8162-2025 of the deceased should be approached from a practical point of view and not divorced from day-to-day realities of life. Hyperboles employed in exchanges should not, without anything more, be glorified as an instigation to commit suicide. It is time the investigating agencies are sensitised to the law laid down by this Court under Section 306 so that persons are not subjected to the abuse of process of a totally untenable prosecution. The trial courts also should exercise great caution and circumspection and should not adopt a play it safe syndrome by mechanically framing charges, even if the investigating agencies in a given case have shown utter disregard for the ingredients of Section 306.
21. For the above reasons, we hold that the case against the appellant is groundless for framing of a charge under Section 306. Hence, we discharge the appellant from proceedings in Sessions Case No. 19 of 2023 pending on the file of First Additional Sessions Judge, Khargone District, Mandleshwar and quash and set aside the said proceedings. The appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 25.07.2023 passed by the High Court in Criminal Revision No. 1142 of 2023 is set aside."
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M. Mohan vs. State , (2011) 3 SCC 626 followed Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh , (2001) 9 SCC 618, wherein it was held as under:-
"41. This Court in SCC para 20 of Ramesh Kumar has examined different shades of the meaning of "instigation". Para 20 reads as under: (SCC p. 629) "20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do 'an act'. To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation."
In the said case this Court came to the conclusion that there is no Signature Not Verified Signed by: TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Signing time: 02-04-2026 11:02:17 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:19759 10 CRA-8162-2025 evidence and material available on record wherefrom an inference of the appellant- accused having abetted commission of suicide by Seema (the appellant's wife therein) may necessarily be drawn."
Thereafter, this Court in Mohan (supra) held:-
45. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court are 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 this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he/she committed suicide."
[Emphasis supplied]
12. The law laid down in the aforesaid case of Jaydeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda (supra) has been followed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ghanshyam Das Sirvaiya and others Vs. The State of M.P. decided on 28.01.2025 in CRR No.6372 of 2024.
13. In the case of Rajesh (supra), the co-ordinate Bench of this Court has observed as under:-
"4. It is alleged that he was being harassed by the applicant by demanding the excess interest on the same.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is no basic ingredient of section 107 of IPC to constitute the offence under section 306 of IPC.
6. The Apex Court in the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra Vs.State of (Govt of NCT of Delhi) reported in 2009 (16) SCC 605, Shabbir Hussain Vs. State of MP in SLP (Cri) No.7284/2017, Amalendu Pal Vs. State of West Bangal reported in (2010) 1 SCC 707, Rajesh Vs. State of MP in CRR No.3155/2011 decided on 09.07.2019, held that there is no evidence regarding instigation which is one of the most important ingredient under section 107 of the IPC to constitute the offence under section 306 of IPC and set aside the charge under section 306 of the IPC.
7. Section 107 of the IPC makes it obligatory for the prosecution to show and establish the elements of instigation. The Apex Court in the case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar V/s. State of M.P., AIR 2002 SC 1998 has opined as under:-
'8. Even if we accept the prosecution story that the appellant did Signature Not Verified Signed by: TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Signing time: 02-04-2026 11:02:17 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:19759
11 CRA-8162-2025 tell the deceased to go and die, that itself does not constitute the ingredient of instigation the word instigate denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or inadvisable action or to stimulate or incite. Presence of mens rea, therefore, is the necessary concomitant of instigation. It is common knowledge that the words uttered in a quarrel or on the spur of the moment cannot be taken to be uttered with mens rea it is in a fit of anger and emotion.'
8. In the case of Sanju @ Sanjay (supra) the accused allegedly told the deceased "to go and die" yet Apex Court opined that it does not constitute the ingredient of "instigation". In the instant case, if story of the prosecution is read and believed as such, it would be clear that the appellants did not in any manner instigate the deceased to commit suicide. There is no element of "incitement" or "instigation" on their behalf. Thus, Section 306 of the IPC is not attracted against the appellants.
9. The ancillary question is whether their acts fall within the ambit of Section 306 of the IPC. In Gangula Mohan Reddy V/s. State of Andhra Pradesh (2010) 1 SCC 750, the Apex Court opined as under :-
'17. 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 this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.'
10. The principle flowing from this judgment is that the overt act of accused person must be of such a nature where the victim had no option but to commit suicide. Even assuming that the appellants mounted pressure upon the deceased to repay the Bank defalcated amount, this does not fall within the ambit of "incitement" or "instigation".
11. This Court in Hukum Singh Yadav V/s. State of M.P. reported in ILR (2011) MP 1089 considered the judgment of Supreme Court in Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar (supra) and held as under :-
'10. Considering these legal aspect this is to be observed that whether applicants have had same knowledge that deceased would commit suicide. As per the prosecution case when deceased was going with his father. Applicants restrained deceased and his father Jagdish and abused and threatened both of them, hence it cannot be assumed that applicants had knowledge that one of them Signature Not Verified Signed by: TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Signing time: 02-04-2026 11:02:17 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:19759
12 CRA-8162-2025 particularly deceased will commit suicide. When act of abusing and threatening was alleged to be done with deceased as well as his father, so it cannot be said that applicants had knowledge or intention that deceased should commit suicide. There is no evidence that they provoked, incited or encouraged deceased to commit suicide. It is also not alleged that when applicants threatened to kill the deceased and his father Jagdish they were armed with some weapons. So it cannot be presumed that deceased was so frightened that he had no option left except committing suicide and was compelled to do so.'
12. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide its order dated 23/2/2018 in Criminal Revision No. 208/2018 in the case of Hemchand Yashwant Fasatey Vs. State of M.P, after referring to various judgments of the Apex Court held that demand of loan amount or asking to repay the money would not amount to abetment.
13. Accordingly, the present application is allowed. The FIR registered at crime no.188/2021 for the offence punishable under section 306 of the IPC and all the proceedings pursuant thereto against the applicant is quashed."
14. In the case of Prateek Guatam (supra), the coordinate Bench of this Court has observed in paragraph No.13 as under:-
"10. In the present case also the petitioner demanded amount of loan advanced by him and exercised pressure upon the deceased for the same. It can not be said that he instigated or provoked the deceased to commit suicide. The deceased probably could not resist the pressure of repaying the loan and committed suicide. In view of the circumstances of the case and the legal aspects, in the opinion of this Court, ingredients of "abetment to commit suicide" is missing, therefore, offence under Section 306 of the IPC against the petitioner/accused is not made out."
14. The question that arises for consideration before this Court is whether the framing of charges against the appellant under Section 108 of the BNS, 2023 read with Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 is lawful and proper, and whether the appellant is liable to be discharged from the said charges.
15. On the anvil of the aforesaid discussion and having regard to the law laid down in the aforementioned cases, it is clear that where the accused Signature Not Verified Signed by: TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Signing time: 02-04-2026 11:02:17 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:19759 13 CRA-8162-2025 merely demands repayment of money advanced by him and on account of such demand, the victim commits suicide, no offence under Section 108 of the BNS, 2023 is made out, as no instigation or abetment to commit suicide as contemplated under Section 45 of the BNS, 2023 is established. Since the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 is dependent upon the existence of the principal offence under Section 108 of the BNS, 2023, in the absence of a prima facie case under Section 108 of the BNS, 2023, the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 also would not be attracted. At best, the allegations indicate a demand for repayment of money and an alleged demand for additional money, which by itself does not constitute the offences alleged. 1 6 . Ex consequenti, the criminal appeal succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated 16.05.2025, whereby charges were framed against the appellant for the offences punishable under Section 108 of the BNS, 2023 read with Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, is hereby set aside. The appellant is discharged from the aforesaid charges. The learned trial Court is directed to drop the proceedings pending against the appellant. It is made clear that the trial shall proceed against the remaining accused persons in accordance with law.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI) JUDGE THK Signature Not Verified Signed by: TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Signing time: 02-04-2026 11:02:17