IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
G. S. Ahluwalia, J.
Sitaram Yadav – Petitioner
Versus
State of M. P. and others – Respondents
W. P. Nos. 21097 and 22734 of 2023
Decided On : 15-03-2024
Quashment - FIR - IPC Sections 306, 294, 506, 34 - The court interpreted the provisions of IPC regarding abetment of suicide, emphasizing the necessity of intent and overt acts to establish culpability, ultimately leading to the quashment of the FIR.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash an FIR alleging abetment of suicide against him and others, following the death of an accused in a separate assault case. The petitioner argued that the allegations did not constitute an offence under the IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations, even if taken at face value, did not establish any offence under the relevant IPC sections, particularly noting the lack of intent and overt acts necessary for abetment.
Issues: Whether the allegations in the FIR constituted an offence under sections 306, 294, and 506 of the IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that mere allegations without clear intent or overt acts do not suffice to establish abetment of suicide under section 306 IPC, and that the FIR was quashed as it did not disclose any cognizable offence.
Result: The FIR in Crime No. 571/2023 is quashed in toto.
ORDER :
G. S. Ahluwalia, J.
By this common order, W. P. No. 22734/2023 shall also be disposed of. For the sake of convenience, facts of W. P. No. 21097/2023 shall be taken into consideration.
2. This writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed for quashment of FIR in Crime No. 571/2023 registered at Police Station Prithvipur, District Niwari for offence under sections 306, 294, 506, 34 of Indian Penal Code.
3. It is the case of petitioner that he is working as Rural Agriculture Extension Officer. On 16-3-2023 at about 9.30 P.M., the brother of petitioner, namely; Ajay Pratap Yadav with his nephew Ankit Yadav was returning back to his village. They were waylaid by Badam Yadav, Shivam Yadav, Vipin Yadav and Anand Yadav and assaulted him by sharp edged dangerous weapon Farsa and Lohangi. Ajay Pratap Yadav sustained incised wound on his forehead. His brother Ajay Pratap Yadav was immediately referred to the Hospital and FIR in Crime No. 171/2023 was registered at Police Station Prithvipur, District Niwari for offence under sections 324, 323, 294, 506, 34 of Indian Penal Code. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that thereafter, offence under section 307 of Indian Penal Code was also added. Since, the accused persons of crime No. 171/2023 i.e. Shivam Yadav, Badam Yadav, Vipin Yadav and Anand Yadav were absconding, therefore, the SHO, Police Station Prithvipur sought an information about the property details from Tahsildar for declaring them as proclaimed absconder under sections 82, 83 of Criminal Procedure Code. Co-accused Vipin Yadav and Anand Yadav filed an application for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court, which was rejected by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Niwari by order dated 13-5-2023. The Second Additional Sessions Judge, Niwari also rejected the bail application of Badam Singh Yadav. Thereafter, brother of the petitioner, namely; Ajay Pratap Yadav filed W. P. No. 13940/2023 alleging that although he was badly assaulted by accused persons even then the accused persons of Crime No. 171/2023 are threatening him to take his life because one of his relative is posted in the same Police Station. It was also alleged that on 20-3-2023, the accused persons came and threatened the brother of the petitioner to enter into a compromise and, accordingly, a complaint was also made the S.P. and D.G.P. It was also specifically alleged by his brother in W. P. No. 13940/2023 that Police Station Simra and Police Station Prithvipur are hand in gloves with the accused of Crime No. 171/2023 and Harsh Yadav, who is related to the accused persons and is posted in Police Station Prithvipur is hampering the investigation of Crime No. 171/2023. Accordingly, Police protection was also prayed by brother of the petitioner in W. P. No. 13940/2023. On 27-6-2023, a Coordinate Bench of this Court disposed of the petition with a direction to the Superintendent of Police, Niwari to enquire into the matter and direct his subordinate Police Authorities to take appropriate action against the accused persons, if any non-bailable offence is registered against them. The State Counsel was also directed to send a copy of the order to the Superintendent of Police, Niwari for information and compliance. The SHO, Police Station Prithvipur filed his status report before JMFC regarding investigation in Crime No. 171/2023 and informed that accused Shivam Yadav, Vipin Yadav and Anand Yadav are absconding from the date of incident. Later on, co-accused Shivam Yadav, who was the main accused in Crime No. 171/2023 was found dead on 31-7-2023 on account of electrocution as he came in contact with live electricity lines of high voltage in the agricultural field. A news to that effect was also published in Dainik Bhaskar Newspaper. Accordingly, a representation was submitted by the wife of the petitioner on 8-8-2023 to the Superintendent of Police, Niwari that since Investigating Officer Tinkal Yadav and accused of Crime No. 171/20
Ajay Kumar Das vs. State of Jharkhand
Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu vs. State of W. B.
Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander
Amit Kapur vs. Ramesh Chander and another
Chitresh Kumar Chopra vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi)
Gangula Mohan Reddy vs. State of A. P.
Kishori Lal vs. State of M. P.
M. Mohan vs. State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police
M. N. Ojha vs. Alok Kumar Srivastav
M. Srikanth vs. State of Telangana
Mohd. Akram Siddiqui vs. State of Bihar
Munshiram vs. State of Rajasthan
Praveen Pradhan vs. State of Uttaranchal and another
Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Sangeeta Agrawal vs. State of U. P.
Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar vs. State of M. P.
State of A. P. vs. Gourishetty Mahesh
State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal
State of Orissa vs. Ujjal Kumar Burdhan
State of Tamil Nadu vs. S. Martin and ors.
State of W. B. vs. Orilal Jaiswal and another
Teeja Devi vs. State of Rajasthan
Vikram Johar vs. State of U. P. and another
Yin Cheng Hsiung vs. Essem Chemical Industries
M. N. Ojha vs. Alok Kumar Srivastav
AI
To establish abetment of suicide under IPC, there must be clear intent and overt acts; mere allegations are insufficient.
To establish abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear evidence of instigation or direct causation linked to the act of suicide, which was not present in this case.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of mens rea and direct or active instigation for the offence of abetment under Section 306 of the IPC. The judgment also emphasizes....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that for the offence of abetment under Section 306 of the IPC, there must be a clear mens rea and an active or direct act leading the deceased to c....
Single WhatsApp message alleging threats insufficient for prima facie abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC without evidence of instigation, mens rea or proximate act compelling suicide; FIR quas....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that to constitute the offence of abetment of suicide under Sec. 306 of the Indian Penal Code, there must be a clear mens rea and a positive act on....
To establish abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear instigation or intentional aid; mere suspicion or threats are insufficient.
Abetment of suicide – In order to convict a person for offences under Section 306 IPC, basic and essential ingredients of offence, whether death was suicidal and whether there was abetment and instig....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.