ORDER

1. Heard on IA No.15699/2022 which is an application for deleting the name of respondent No.2.

2. It is submitted that as per the information the respondent No.2 has died. This fact is supported by an affidavit of the applicant.

3. Considering the same, the application is allowed.

4. The applicant is directed to delete the respondent No.2 and as a consequence thereof, the application for urgent hearing stands disposed of.

5. With the consent of parties, matter is finally heard.

6. Present petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner under section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashment of the Criminal Case registered at S.T. No.31/2020 pending Before II ASJ, Dewas alongwith all subsequent proceedings pending against the petitioner under section 306 and 120-B of IPC.

7. According to the prosecution story, on 19.12.2016, one Kailash Prasad Yadav resident of District Dewas has committed suicide by self immolation. The allegations against the petitioner are that the deceased had borrowed huge amount from various persons including the present petitioner. It is further alleged by the prosecution that the deceased was feeling harassed because of the regular demands made by the petitioner and other persons with regard to repayment of loan amount/borrowed amount due to which he has committed suicide. Thereafter, after the detailed enquiry, the petitioner was implicated in the present case.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that similarly placed coaccused persons namely; Manohar Madhwani, Kailash Shukla, Radha Vallabh Singh and Mohan Singh Rajput has been acquitted from the charges and their application has been allowed. He has placed reliance on the order dated 10.5.2022 passed in MCRC No.23522 of 2022 passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in respect of Manohar Madhwani has been allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is innocent and has implicated falsely in the present case. The petitioner has been implicated only on the ground that he has given loan to the deceased, there is no direct or indirect evidence to connect the petitioner with the present applicant in the given facts and circumstances of case and the material available on record. It is also submitted that the petitioner was implicated only on the basis of his name mentioned in a diary which has been recovered from house of the deceased in which he used to write the entries of the amount borrowed from many persons. It is further submitted that there is absolutely no evidence of harassment or causing abetment to the deceased. Even dying declaration does not speak about the present petitioner and the deceased does not speak anything about the present petitioner in his dying declaration regarding any harassment, hence, there is no parameters of 'abetment' which has been stated in section 107 of IPC. Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance in judgment of Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State of (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) reported in 2009 (16) SCC 605 where the person can be said to have abetted in doing a thing if he, firstly, instigates any person to do that thing; or secondly, engaged with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if any act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy and in order to the doing of that thing; or thirdly, intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. There is no ingredients of section 306 of IPC.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further placed reliance over the judgments passed by apex Court in the case of S.S. Chena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan & Another reported in 2010 (12) SCC 190, Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State of A.P. reported in (2010) 1 SCC 750.

10. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer by submitting that the petitioner in connivance with other co-accused person has harassed the deceased due to which he has committed suicide. The deceased has clearly mentioned his name in the dying declaration th