ORDER

1. With the consent of learned counsel for the rival parties, the matter was heard on 24.10.2024 at length and today the order is being pronounced.

2. This petition has been filed under section 482 of CrPC by the petitioners seeking the following relief:-

It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court be kind enough to allow this petition and quash and set aside the charge-sheet filed against the petitioners in Crime No.646/2022 by Police of Police Station-City Kotwali Satna, District-Satna (M.P.) under sections 306, 34, 201 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The encapsulated facts of the case are that the incident is said to have taken place between 6.10.2022 and 7.10.2022 and the FIR was lodged on 3.11.2022 alleging that the deceased was dwelling with her son in a rented premises of the petitioners. The petitioners’ son and the deceased became close which led to a relationship and later to a preganancy, that was terminated. Albeit, as per the allegations, the son of the petitioners started blackmailing the deceased on the anvil of her aberrant and obscene videos and photographs. It is alleged the incident was known by the petitioners but rather dissuading they persuaded their son. The deceased felt so mentally and physically harassed, that she took her life by hanging.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners sanguinely pinpointing the demeanour of the deceased submitted that the deceased got disoriented in her affair with the petitioners’ son, who impregnated her and such pregnancy was got terminated and she herself was unsure/confused about her directionless life. He further submitted that there was no element of direct abetment by the petitioners to the deceased to commit suicide and therefore the offence punishable under section 306 of IPC was not at all made out against them. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, from the contents of the FIR and the material collected by the prosecution, it is clear that it is not a case of section 306 of IPC inasmuch as there is no material to show that at any point of time the petitioners asked the deceased to commit suicide or was there any abetment on their part compelling the deceased to commit suicide. To reinforce, learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on a decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Asha Rani v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. rendered in Crl.M.C. 1411/2023 on 9.4.2024 and the decision of this court passed in Cr.Rev. No.329/2022 (Anju Raidas & Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Another) on 7.5.2024. He also relies on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Nipun Aneja and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh passed in Criminal Appeal No.654/2017 on 3.10.2024.

5. In contrast, learned counsel appearing for the respondentState submitted that on the face of the allegations made in the FIR and the material gleaned by the prosecution, like -videos, it is clear that the petitioners have rightly been made the accused for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. He further submitted that rather than discouraging their son, the petitioners supported him, and when the deceased asked for help, they urged her to take her own life. Thus, they have rightly been saddled with the responsibility of becoming accused in the crime.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record.

7. Obviously, the FIR shows no proof that the petitioners encouraged the deceased to commit suicide. Monetarily, if it is presumed that the petitioners’ son had harassed the deceased, even then on the basis of the omnibus allegations on record, the petitioners cannot be held responsible for the same. The allegation made by the deceased that since the petitioners’ son harassed her physically and mentally and even after knowing that fact, the petitioners did not stop him, resultantly they will have to bear the brunt of responsibility and should also be punished because the deceased committed suicide as was left with no othe