ORDER

1. Both these revision petitions have arisen out of the same impugned order dated 27.9.2021 passed by the 2nd ASJ, Ujjain, whereby charge has been framed against the petitioners under section 306 of IPC, therefore, they were heard analogously and are being decided by this common order.

2. In brief, the facts of the case are that the deceased Shubham Khandelwal was working as a licensee contractor at Municipal Corporation, Indore. He has committed suicide by causing accident of his car with another car. During the merg enquiry, suicide note was recovered from his car and in the further enquiry it has been gathered that deceased was being harassed by Sub-Engineer Naresh Jain, Sanjay Khujneri and Chinu and other persons. They were demanding illegal money/bribe from him. The deceased has sent so many complaints to the Chief Minister and other ministers of Government of M.P. against the corruption done by the accused persons. Prior to the accident, deceased also tried to commit suicide by consuming poisonous substance sulfas. On account of the harassment soon before the death, deceased Shubham Khandelwal committed suicide, therefore, offence has been registered under section 306 IPC against the present petitioners and other co-accused persons. After the investigation, charge sheet has been filed. Learned trial Court after perusal of the entire evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that prima facie charge under section 306 of IPC is made out against the petitioners. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioners have preferred these revision petitions.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner Naresh submits that it is the initial case of the prosecution that the decease had suffered motor accident injuries and the prosecution is unable to prove suicide in the case. The petitioner was a Government servant while discharging his official duty. He passed the bill and he was not the person who had to release the fund. Sanction from the competent authority was not obtained. He further submits that if the complete case of the prosecution is accepted, even then the ingredients of section 107 of IPC are completely missing in this case and no case is made out as mere harassment does not fall within the category of abetment. He submits that the petitioner never abetted the deceased and there is no document on record to prove that he ever harassed the deceased. Petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case, the entire prosecution case is not maintainable in the eyes of law as the accused persons never abetted or instigated the deceased for commission of suicide. In the above circumstances, he prays that charges framed by the lower Court be set aside and the petitioner be discharged from the charge under section 306 of IPC.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant Sanjay submits that the impugned order passed by the Court below is against the law. The petitioner never abetted the deceased to commit suicide. Nothing is mentioned in the suicide note that he has abetted the deceased. Only it has been mentioned by the deceased in the suicide note that responsible for his death is Naresh Jain and he had harassed him, due to which he is committing suicide. Hence, he also prays that impugned order be set aside and the petitioner be discharged from all the charges.

5. Per contra, learned PL for the respondent/State opposes the prayer and submits that prima facie cogent and sufficient evidence is available on record. On the basis of the evidence available on record, prima facie offence under section 306 IPC is made out against both the petitioners, therefore, it cannot be said that learned trial Court has committed any legal or factual error in framing the charge for the offence under section 306 of IPC.

6. The suicide note alleged to have been written by the deceased Shubham Khandelwal reads as under:

^^iwT; firk th ,oa ekrk th {kek djuk tks dne eSaus ÅBk;k ij esa cgqr fnu¨a ls bu y¨x¨a ls ijs'kku Fkk tks eq>s ekufld ruko ns jgs Fks bu