ORDER

1. Petitioner has preferred this criminal revision under section 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 15.5.2023 passed in S.T. No.58/2023, whereby the charge under section 306 read with section 34 of IPC has been framed against the petitioner.

2. As per the prosecution story, complainant lodged an FIR at P.S. Jeevajiganj, Ujjain on 17.8.2020 by stating that his son Akash was having some financial transaction with the petitioner/accused prior to the incident. On 16.8.2020 present petitioner mentally and physically harassed the deceased for non payment of his money, due to which on 17.8.2020 in the morning time Akash has committed suicide by hanging himself. The deceased also left a suicide note in which name of the petitioner has been mentioned. After the Merg inquiry, offence has been registered against the present petitioner and other co-accused persons.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this matter. Mere demand of borrowed amount cannot be considered as abetment of suicide. The impugned order passed by the learned trial Court is contrary to the law and facts and the material available on record and in the suicide note no incriminating material has been found against the present petitioner except the omnibus allegation. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a reputed businessman and not having any criminal past. Hence, he prays that the impugned order be set aside and the petitioner be discharged from all the charges. He has also placed reliance upon the order passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Vedprakash Bhaiji v. State of M.P. reported in 1994 JLJ 758 and the order dated 1.10.2018 passed in the case of Ratanlal v. State of M.P. in Criminal Revision No.4485/2018.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the prayer and supported the impugned order by submitting that the trial Court has not committed any error in framing the charge against the petitioner. The petitioner has harassed the deceased, due to which he has committed suicide. Hence, the learned trial court has rightly framed the charges under Section 306 of IPC against the petitioner.

5. Counsel for both the parties heard at length and perused the impugned order and the other documents available on record.

6. In the instant case, from perusal of the prima facie evidence available on record, it appears that there is sufficient evidence for constituting strong suspicion over the petitioner regarding the fact that he has tortured and harassed the deceased for payment of the money. Petitioner himself filed Whatsapp chat. It also corroborated the case of the prosecution regarding the payment made by the petitioner to the deceased.

7. According to the suicide note, there is clear and specific allegation against the petitioner that he has harassed the deceased and deceased clearly named the petitioner along with other co-accused persons in the detailed suicide note. He also mentioned that on 14.8.2020 petitioner along with 4 other persons tortured him and threatened him that we will come on next time and shall beat you to the extent that on the next time there should be no need for demand of money. They also abused him in filthy language, due to which the deceased scared.

8. The Hon’ble apex Court in the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt.of NCT of Delhi) reported in (2009) 16 SCC 605 has observed as under:-

"Where the accused had, by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct, creates such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide, in which case an "instigation" may have to be inferred."

9. In the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra (supra), after due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case Hon'ble Court noted that prima facie, case of abetment was made out on the basis of suicide note and statements of witnesses recorded by the polic