JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties.

2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicant to quash the order dated 08.10.2021 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.1/Special Judge, DAA, Mahoba in Session Case No.291 of 2021, State versus Chaudhary Chhatrapal Yadav and other, (Case Crime No.65 of 2021), under Section 306, 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Nagar Mahoba), District Mahoba whereby learned trial Court dismissed the discharge application moved by applicant under Section 227 for discharging him in the alleged sections and charge has been directed to be framed under Sections 306, 504 and 506 against the applicant and other co-accused.

3. Main Prayer in the application is as under:-

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow the present application and set aside the order dated 08.10.2021 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.1/Special Judge, D.D.A., Mahoba in Sessions Case No.291 of 2021, (State Vs. Chaudhary Chhatrapal Yadav and others), arising out of Case Crime No.65 of 2021, under Sections 306, 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Nagar (Mahoba), District Mahoba whereby the learned Court below has rejected the discharge application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. of applicant."

4. Impugned order has been assailed by the accused-applicant mainly on the ground that he has been falsely implicated in the present case due to political rivalry. He has no concerned with the present crime. He has committed no offence. Prosecution story is false and fake. He neither tortured the victim/deceased nor demanded/took any money. He never instigated the victim to commit suicide. There is no role of the present applicant in committing suicide of the victim. Accused-applicant has no concerned at all with the present case. Learned Counsel contends that no offence, as alleged, is made out. He showed some papers as well as statements in support of his contention and relied upon the judgments as under :-

i. Jalil Khan and others vs. State of M.P., (2021 Law Suit (MP) 2021).

ii. M. Mohan vs. State Represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, (2011) 3 SCC 626.

iii. Gurcharan Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2017) 1 SCC 433.

iv. M. Arjunan vs. State Represented by its Inspector of Police, (2019) 3 SCC 315.

5. From the side of opposite parties, application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been opposed by alleging that accused-applicant is man of criminal antecedents, number of criminal cases have been registered against him. He operates a gang of criminals. Prior to the present incident, accused-applicant has demanded/ took some money from the son of victim/deceased who lodged an FIR against the applicant and some other persons under Section 386 IPC in police station concerned. When the police took no action, victim/deceased has decided to end his life and committed suicide by way of shooting himself with his licency rifle, which is alleged to be used in incident, was found on spot and suicide note allegedly written by victim himself was also recovered by the police from the spot. It is further stated that the Investigating Officer has collected credible evidence like suicide note, previous FIR and CCTV clip and statements of witnesses who have verified the prosecution versions. The Investigating Officer has rightly submitted charge sheet against the applicant and other accused persons and no illegality in the same. It was further alleged that accused-applicant is habitual offender having long criminal history of heinous crime like murder, dacoity, extortion etc. in order to take goonda tax. He started threatening to the brother of opposite party no.2 and took huge amount from him, when the victim/deceased came to know the fact of goonda tax taken by the accused-applicant, objected the same and lodged an FIR under Section 386 IPC bearing case Crime No.52 of 2021 but the local police did not tak