MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT BENCH AT GWALIOR
S.A. Dharmadhikari, J.
Manoj Bhargava - Appellant
Versus
State Of M.P. And Others - Respondents
Cr.R. No. 346/2019, Cr.R. No. 1044 of 2019 and M. Cr.C. No. 9418/2018 and M. Cr.C. No. 11359/2018
Decided On : 14-01-2020
CRIMINAL REVISION - SECTION 397/401 OF CR.P.C. - CHARGE FRAMING - SECTION 306 OF IPC - ABETMENT OF SUICIDE - INGREDIENTS - SUFFICIENCY OF GROUNDS - SECTION 228 OF CR.P.C. - SCOPE AND JURISDICTION - SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. - INHERENT POWERS OF HIGH COURT - PRINCIPLES FOR EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION - QUASHING OF CHARGE - PRINCIPLES AND GUIDELINES - CIVIL WRONG WITH NO ELEMENT OF CRIMINALITY - ABUSE OF PROCESS OF COURT - INTEREST OF JUSTICE - SECTION 107 OF IPC - INSTIGATION - MEANING AND SCOPE - SECTION 227 OF CR.P.C. - DISCHARGE OF ACCUSED - GROUNDS - SECTION 190 OF CR.P.C. - POWER OF MAGISTRATE TO REFUSE COGNIZANCE - JUDICIAL FUNCTION - APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE - STAGE OF FRAMING OF CHARGE - SECTION 226 OF CR.P.C. - DESCRIPTION OF CHARGE AND STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE BY PROSECUTOR - SECTION 397 OF CR.P.C. - SCOPE AND JURISDICTION - SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. - INHERENT POWERS OF HIGH COURT - PRINCIPLES FOR EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION - QUASHING OF CHARGE - PRINCIPLES AND GUIDELINES - CIVIL WRONG WITH NO ELEMENT OF CRIMINALITY - ABUSE OF PROCESS OF COURT - INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, Manoj Bhargava and Pradeep Sengar, had earlier filed M.Cr.C. No. 9418/2018 & M. Cr.C. No. 11359/2018 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings which was pending in criminal original case No. 82/2018 before the court below arising out of FIR bearing crime No. 21/2018 registered at police station City Kotwali, Dist. Shivpuri for the offence punishable under section 306 of IPC. During pendency of these petitions, the court below has framed charge against the petitioners in case No. 50/2018 ST under section 306 r/w section 34 of IPC, therefore, the petitioners have filed Cr.R. No. 346/2019 & Cr.R. No. 1044/2019 under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. challenging the order of framing of charge dated 10/01/2019.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that there was sufficient material on record to prima facie show commission of offence by the petitioner. No illegality could be pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner in the order framing charge.
Issues: Whether the order of the trial court framing charge against the petitioner for the offence under section 306 r/w section 34 of IPC was illegal and liable to be quashed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that at the time of framing of charge, meticulous appreciation of evidence is not required and even a strong suspicion is sufficient to frame the charges.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner.
JUDGMENT
1. Since, common questions of law and facts are involved in the present case as well as in Cr.R. No. 1044/2019, M.Cr.C. No. 9418/2018 & M. Cr.C. No. 11359/2018, therefore, with the consent of parties, the matters are analogously heard and decided finally by this common order. For the purpose of convenience facts mentioned in Cr.R. No. 346/2019 shall be taken into consideration.
2. T he petitioners Manoj Bhargava & Pradeep Sengar have earlier filed M.Cr.C. No. 9418/2018 & M. Cr.C. No. 11359/2018 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings which was pending in criminal original case No. 82/2018 before the court below arising out of FIR bearing crime No. 21/2018 registered at police station City Kotwali, Dist. Shivpuri for the offence punishable under section 306 of IPC. During pendency of these petitions, the court below has framed charge against the petitioners in case No. 50/2018 ST under section 306 r/w section 34 of IPC, therefore, the petitioners have filed Cr.R. No. 346/2019 & Cr.R. No. 1044/2019 under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. challenging the order of framing of charge dated 10/01/2019.
3. T he necessary facts for disposal of the present petition in short are that the petitioners Manoj Bhargava and Pradeep Sengar have instigated the deceased Rajesh Ojha to commit suicide by alleging that the petitioners had not covered the Porch and Dumduma and had not handed over the possession of house to the deceased despite receiving the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- and the petitioners further additionally demanded the sum of Rs. 50,000/- from the deceased, due to which, the deceased has committed suicide. Further, on 03/01/2018 at the office of DHFL, the petitioner Manoj Bhargava with his common intention with other co-accused has abetted the deceased to commit suicide which resultantly let the deceased to commit suicide by consuming poisonous substance. Thereafter, the petitioner and co-accused were arrested. The statements of witnesses were recorded and after completing all necessary formalities, charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner and co-accused for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC, which is pending before the court of 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Dist. Shivpuri in S.T. No. 50/2018. The trial court vide impugned order dated 10/01/2019 has framed the charge against the petitioner and coaccused for the offence under section 306 r/w section 34 of IPC.
4. F or ready reference and convenience, the charge framed by the court below against the petitioner vide impugned order dated 10/01/2019 is reproduced herein below :-
vkjksi
eSa] vkj- ih- feJ] prqFkZ vij l= U;k;k/kh'k] f'koiqjh ftyk f'koiqjh vki vfHk;qDr eukst iq= jked`".k HkkxZo] vk;q +------- o"kZ] fuoklh [ksM+kifr dkWyksuh f'koiqjh ij] fuEufyf[kr vkjksi yxkrk gwa fd %&
izFke% ;g fd vkius fnukad 03-01-2018 dks fnu ds 3%30 cts ds yxHkx LFkku Vh0,p0,Q0,y0 daiuh f'koiqjh ds dk;kZy; esa vraxZr vkj{kh dsUnz dksrokyh f'koiqjh esa tgjhyk inkFkZ [kkdj jkts'k vks>k us vkRegR;k dh vkSj vkius jkts'k vks>k ls mlds }kjk ;g fd;s x;s IykWV ij cuk;s edku esa ikspZ doMZ rFkk nqenqek ds fy;s iqFkd ls ,d yk[k :i;s ysdj dk;Z u dj edku mls gS.MvkWoj ugha fd;k rFkk ipkl gtkj :i;s dh vkSj ekax dj mls izrkfM+r dj vkRegR;k djus ds fy;s nq"izsfjr fd;k vkSj bl izdkj vkius og vijk/k fd;k tks Hkk0n0a l0a dh /kkjk 306 ds vraxZr nMauh; vijk/k dkfjr fd;k] tks bl U;k;ky; ds laKku esa gSA
^^fodYi esa^^
;g fd mDr fnukad] le; o LFkku ij vkius ;g vfHk;qDr ds lkFk feydj e`rd jkts'k vks>k dks vkRegR;k djus ds fy, nq"izsfjr djus dk lkekU; vk'k; fufeZr fd;k vkSj ml lkekU; vk'k; ds vxzlj.k esa e`rd jkts'k vks>k dks vkRegR;k djus ds fy;s nq"izsfjr fd;k ftlds QyLo:i fnukad 03-01-2018 dks fnu ds 03%30 cts ds yxHkx jkts'k vks>k tgjhyk inkFkZ [kkdj vkRegR;k dh vkSj bl izdkj vkius og vijk/k fd;k tks Hkk0n0a l0a dh /kkjk 306 lgifBr /kkjk 34 ds vraxZr nMauh; vijk/k gS] tks bl U;k;ky; ds laKku esa gSA
vkSj eSa ,rn~ }kjk ;g funsZ'k nsrk gwa fd mDr vkjksiksa ij vkidk fopkj.k bl U;k;ky; }
Ajay Kumar Parmar vs. State of Rajasthan
Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal
Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander & Anr.
Chitresh Kumar Chopra vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (2009) 16 SCC 605 : AIR 2010 SC 1446
Chunduru Siva Ram Krishna vs. Peddi Ravindra Babu
G. Sagar Suri vs. State of U.P.
Ganesh Narayan Hegde vs. S. Bangarappa
Gangula Mohan Reddy vs. State of A.P.
Gurcharan Singh vs. State of Punjab
Lalmuni Devi vs. State of Bihar
M. 8 MCRC.6606/2015 Krishnan vs. Vijay Singh
M. Mohan vs. State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police
Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre
Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. vs. Biological E. Ltd.
P. Vijayan vs. State of Kerala and Anr.
Pepsi Foods Ltd. vs. Special Judicial Magistrate
Praveen Pradhan vs. State of Uttaranchal
Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chattisgarh
Rupan Deol Bajaj vs. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill (1995) 6 SCC 194 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 1059
S.M. Datta vs. State of Gujarat
S.S. Chheena vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and another
Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Sheonandan Paswan vs. State of Bihar
Soma Chakravarty vs. State (Th. CBI)
Sonti Rama Krishna vs. Sonti Shanti Sree
State of Bihar vs. P.P. Sharma
State of Bihar vs. Ramesh Singh (1977) 4 SCC 39 : AIR 1977 SC 2018
State of Maharashtra vs. Som Nath Thapa
State of Punjab vs. Iqbal Singh
State of W.B. vs. Swapan Kumar Guha
State of West Bengal vs. Orilal Jaiswal (1994) 1 SCC 73 : (AIR 1994 SC 1418 :1994 AIR SCW 844
Union of India vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.