Allahabad High Court
Shravan Kumar Modanwal And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. ... on 10 October, 2025
Author: Rajeev Singh
Bench: Rajeev Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:62954
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8506 of 2025
Shravan Kumar Modanwal And 2 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Arvind Pratap Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 14
HON'BLE RAJEEV SINGH, J.
1. Vakalatnama filed by Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate on behalf of the respondent no.2 is taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
3. This application has been filed with the following prayer:-
"To quash the impugned order dated 02.09.2025 passed by Session Judge, Ambedkar Nagar in S.T. No. 74 of 2025 (State Vs. Shravan Kumar and Ors.) related to F.I.R. No. 586 of 2022 u/s 306 I.P.C., Police Station- Akbarpur, District- Ambedkar Nagar."
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants were falsely implicated in the present case. The deceased was real brother of the applicant no.1. The Investigating Officer submitted the charge-sheet in the most mechanical manner. After considering the entire evidence collected by the Investigating Officer, no offense of abetment is made out.
Relying on the judgements of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Geeta Vs. State of Karnataka reported in Crl. Appeal No. 1044 of 2018, Prabhu Vs. State represented by the Inspector of Police & Anr. reported in SLP (Crl.) Diary No. 39981/2022 and Mariano Anto Bruno and Anr. Vs. Inspector of Police reported in Crl. Appeal No. 1628 of 2022, learned counsel for the applicants submits that once the ingredient of abetment is not found, trial of the case in question u/s 306 I.P.C. is futile one.
It is next submitted that the application for discharge was filed before learned trial Court, but the same was rejected in the most mechanical manner as well as on the basis of presumption. It is, thus, submitted that the order dated 02.09.2025 passed by learned trial Court on the discharge application is liable to be set aside and the applicants may be discharged.
5. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the respondent no.2 vehemently opposes the prayer of the applicants. They jointly submit that the informant's brother (deceased) was compelled to do suicide by the applicants as he was not allowed to run his business.
Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 has drawn attention of the Court on Section 107 of I.P.C.. He submits that a suicide-note in the hand-writing of the informant's brother (deceased) was also found, which was sent to F.S.L. and in the F.S.L. report, it is mentioned that hand-writing of the deceased is found on the suicide-note.
Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the respondent no.2 also submit that the facts of the judgments relied by learned counsel for the applicants are entirely different with the facts of the present case and the said judgments are not applicable in the present case, therefore, there is no illegality in the order passed by learned trial Court and the application is liable to be dismissed.
6. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order as well as other relevant materials, it is evident that the deceased was real brother of the applicant no.1. As per the evidence available on record and collected by the Investigating Officer, the informant's brother (deceased) was victimized by the applicants in the form of conspiracy and he was not allowed to run his business. The deceased had also written a suicide-note. In the F.S.L. report of the suicide-note, hand-writing of the deceased is found. The facts of the judgments relied by learned counsel for the applicants are not applicable in the present case. Therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the trial Court.
7. With the above observations, the present application is dismissed.
(Rajeev Singh,J.) October 10, 2025 Arpan