ORDER :

This petition under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the FIR as well as charge-sheet and consequential proceedings registered as crime No. 213/2020 at Police Station Dehat, District Shivpuri for the offence punishable under sections 306 and 34 of Indian Penal Code.

2. The brief facts, giving rise to this petition are that, on 3-7-2020 one FIR was registered alleging that on 27-6-2020 missing person Vrindawan Sharma did not return to this house and therefore, Smt. Suman Sharma lodged the missing report which was registered as missing report No. 21/2020. It is alleged that on 28-6-2020 missing person- Vrindawan Sharma was found dead near Bakde Baba mandir inside forest. The deceased was found hanging from a tree. Thereafter, the marg inquiry No. 22/20 was registered and during investigation, the family member of the deceased alleged that in November, 2019, the deceased was suspended at the instance of accused Ajay Katiyar, Sachin Agrawal, Prashant Gupta and Narendra Senger. One suicide note was also recovered in which the deceased has made allegation against the present applicant and co-accused persons for harassing him in the office. On the basis of the said suicide note offence was registered against the present applicant and the other co-accused persons under section 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that prima facie on the facts and evidence as adduced by the prosecution in the case, no offence under section 306 of Indian Penal Code is made out against the applicant-accused as there is no evidence on record to show that the petitioner in any manner instigated, aided or provoked the deceased to commit suicide. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgments passed by the Apex Court in the case of Netai Dutta vs. State of W. B., (2005) 2 SCC 659 and Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar vs. State of M. P., (2002) 5 SCC 371 and contended that the applicant has not committed any willful act or omission or intentionally aided or instigated the deceased in committing the act of suicide. There is no case that the applicant has played any part or any role in any conspiracy which ultimately instigated or resulted in the commission of suicide by deceased.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State as well as counsel for the complainant have opposed the submission so advanced by the applicant and have relied upon the judgment passed by Delhi High Court in the case of Madan Gopal @ Madan Bhaiya vs. State of Delhi vide order dated 16-3-2001 passed in Criminal M. (M) No. 91 of 2001 by submitting that at this stage no interference is warranted.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. Section 306 of Indian Penal Code reads as under :—

“Section 306. If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

7. The ‘abetment’ has been defined in section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, which reads as under :—

“Section 107. A person abets the doing of a thing, who — First- Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly- Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an 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. Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.”

8. As section 306 of Indian Penal Code makes abetment of commission of suicide punishable, therefore, for making a person liable for an offence punishable under section 306, Indian Penal Code, it is a duty of the prosecution to establish that such person has abet