The court upheld the presumption of abetment of suicide under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act, affirming sufficient grounds for framing charges of cruelty and abetment against the petitioners.

ORDER :

With consent of the parties heard finally. Invoking the revisional jurisdiction under section 397 read with section 401 of CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE , the petitioner has preferred this revision against the judgment dated 26-11-2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ratlam, District Ratlam in S.T. No. 188/2019 whereby learned Sessions Judge framed charges for offence under section 498-A and 306 of INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 against the petitioners.

2. Succinctly, the case of the prosecution is that on 10-8-2019, a dispute occurred between petitioner No. 1-Dilip and petitioner No. 2-Piru Damor, the father of petitioner No. 1, on account of cattle grazing at that time wife of petitioner No. 1-Dilip came there and asked petitioner No. 2 why he is always disputing with her husband and consumed pesticide due to which she became unconscious and she was taken to hospital at Bajana, wherein she was not given treatment therefore she was taken to a private hospital at Bajana wherein she died during treatment. Merg intimation was lodged in Crime No. 48/2019 and investigation was carried out.

3. During investigation, statement of the witnesses including the parents of the deceased were recorded. After investigation charge-sheet under sections 306, 498-A/34 of INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 has been filed. In the sequel thereof, after considering material available on charge-sheet, the learned trial Court has framed the charges as aforesaid by the impugned order dated 26-11-2019. Being aggrieved from that order, the petitioners have filed this revision.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is no specific instance against the petitioners regarding demand of dowry and harassment. Only general and omnibus allegations has been levelled against them. It is further submitted that petitioner No. 1 is unemployed and he is habitual to get intoxication of liquor, therefore, his father used to scold him on the date of the incident also there was a dispute between the husband of the deceased and his father regarding grazing cattles in between deceased Pooja came there and asked her father-in-law that why he is always disputing with her husband and thereafter she consumed pesticide. He further submitted that the dispute occurs frequently between the father and his son, however, the same cannot be treated as an act of abetment of the deceased to commit suicide. Petitioners No. 2 to 4, who happens to be father-in-law and mother-in-laws respectively, have nothing to do with the offence and merely because they happen to be the in-laws of the deceased they have been dragged into this litigation.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that even if the allegations of prosecution are taken to be true at their face value and accepted in their entirety, they do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the petitioners. It is further submitted that the present case is a glaring example of growing tendency in the society to falsely implicate the close relatives of the husband. In support of his submissions learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon orders passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 4-8-2023 and 17-1-2024 in the case of Kapil vs. State of M. P. , M.Cr.C. No. 10385/2021 and Niharika Joshi vs. State of M. P., M.Cr.C. No. 51971/2021 , respectively. Under these circumstances learned counsel prays for quashing of the FIR bearing Crime No. 48/2019 registered against the petitioners and all consequential proceedings.

6. Learned Government Advocate on the other ha