MCRC/4968/2024 of SATISH SINDAL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 2 February 2024

ORDER

2 . This petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C has been filed forquashment of FIR No.645/2022, registered at police station Nanakheda, DistrictUjjain for the offence punishable under Section 306/34 of the IPC and allsubsequent proceedings.

3. As per the prosecution, on 5.9.2022, the deceased Amar Yadav committed suicide by consuming a poisonous substance. On his death mergwas registered and investigation was commenced during the course of whichstatements of various witnesses were recorded from which it transpired that thedeceased had taken certain sums on loan from different persons including thepresent petitioner, who had been exercising pressure upon him for return of thesame. He used to call him and also used to visit his house demandingrepayment of his amount. The deceased did not narrate about the incident toanyone but used to remain harassed on account of the acts of the accused.Eventually due to the harassment having been meted out to him by the accusedincluding the present petitioner, the deceased committed suicide. On recordingof the statements, FIR has been registered against the accused including thepetitioner for the aforesaid offences and upon completion of the investigation,charge-sheet has been filed before the Court concerned.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner isinnocent and has falsely been implicated in the case. The entire allegations asleveled against the petitioner even if taken to be true at his face value do notamount to an offence punishable under Section 306/34 of the IPC. There are noallegations against the petitioner of instigating or abetting the deceased in anymanner to commit suicide and it cannot be said that due to act of the petitioner,the deceased had no other option but to commit suicide. He had various otherlegal remedies available to him. The act alleged against the petitioner is only tothe effect that he was demanding repayment from the deceased of the amountwhich had been lent by him to him. The same cannot in any manner be said tobe abetment or instigation or even a remote cause for the deceased to commitsuicide. It is hence submitted that the FIR registered against the petitioner be quashed.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State has submitted thatthere is sufficient material available on record to proceed against the petitionerand it cannot be said that no offence whatsoever is made out in view of whichthe petition deserves to be dismissed.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have perusedthe record.

7. Section 107 of the IPC makes it obligatory for the prosecution toshow and establish the elements of instigation. The Apex Court in the case ofSanju @ Sanjay Singh Senger V/s. State of M.P.,AIR 2002 SC 1998has opined as under :-

"13. ... Even if we accept the prosecution story that the appellantdid tell the deceased “to go and die”, that itself does not constitutet he ingredient of “instigation”. The word “instigate” denotesincitement or urging to do some drastic or inadvisable action or tostimulate or incite. Presence of mens rea, therefore, is thenecessary concomitant of instigation. It is common knowledge thatthe words uttered in a quarrel or on the spur of the moment cannotbe taken to be uttered with mens rea. It is in a fit of anger andemotion.”did tell the deceased “to go and die”, that itself does not constitutet he ingredient of “instigation”. The word “instigate” denotesincitement or urging to do some drastic or inadvisable action or tostimulate or incite. Presence of mens rea, therefore, is thenecessary concomitant of instigation. It is common knowledge thatthe words uttered in a quarrel or on the spur of the moment cannotbe taken to be uttered with mens rea. It is in a fit of anger andemotion.”

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 theingredient of "instigation". In the instant case if story of the prosecution is readand believed as such it would be clear that the petitioner did not in any mannerinstigate the deceased to commit suicide. There is no element of "incitement" or"instigation" on his behalf. Thus Section 306 of the IPC is not attracted againstthe petitioner.

9. The ancillary question is whether his acts fall within the ambit ofSection 306 of the IPC. In Gangula Mohan Reddi V/s. State of AndhraPradesh2010 (1) SCC 750the Apex Court opined as under :- "17. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person orintentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positiveact on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committingsuicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of thelegislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court is clearthat in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has tobe a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an activeact or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing nooption and this act must have been intended to push the deceasedinto such a position that he committed suicide."

10. The principle flowing from this judgment is that the overt act ofaccused person must be of a nature where the victim had no option but tocommit suicide. Even assuming that the petitioner was demanding repaymentfrom the deceased of the amount which had been lent by him to him, this doesnot fall within the ambit of "incitement" or "instigation".

11. This Court in Hukum Singh Yadav V/s. State of M.P. reported inILR (2011) MP 1089considered the judgment of Supreme Court in Sanju @

Sanjay Singh Senger and held as under :-

"10. Considering these legal aspect this is to be observed thatwhether applicants have had same knowledge that deceased wouldcommit suicide. As per the prosecution case when deceased wasgoing with his father. Applicants restrained deceased and hisfather Jagdish and abused and threatened both of them, hence itcannot be assumed that applicants had knowledge that one of themparticularly deceased will commit suicide. When act of abusing andthreatening was alleged to be done with deceased as well as hisfather, so it cannot be said that applicants had knowledge orintention that deceased should commit surcide. There is noevidence that they provoked, incited or encouraged deceased tocommit suicide. It is also not alleged that when applicantsthreatened to kili deceased and his father Jagdish they werearmed with some weapons. So it cannot be presumed thatdeceased was so frightened that he had no option left exceptcommitting suicide and was compelled to do so."

12. The act of the petitioner, in the opinion of this Court does not attract Section 306/34 of IPC. In absence of establishing necessary ingredients forattracting Section 306/34 of the IPC, the petitioner cannot be compelled to face the trial unnecessarily.

13. In view of the foregoing analysis, no offence under Section 306/34 ofthe IPC is made out against the petitioner even if the allegations levelled againsthim are assumed to be true. As a consequence, the petition is allowed and FIRdated 6.11.2022 registered vide Crime No.645/2022 at Police StationNanakheda, District Ujjain, charge-sheet and all the subsequent proceedings arehereby quashed against the petitioner.

C.c. as per rules.

Shilpa

(PRANAY VERMA)JUDGE