Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice

18.03.2025

1. Heard Mr. K.N. Nande, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN heard Mr. Malay Jain, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the BRIJMOHAN MORLE MORLE Date:

2025.03.18 +0530 respondent/State.

2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:

“It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned FIR, No. 367 of 2023, dated 13.10.2023 offence under Sections 306 and 34 of the IPC, impugned charge-sheet filed before the learned trial Court and order taking cognizance by the learned trial Court i.e. Additional Session Judge, Chirmiri in Session Trial Case No. 15 of 2025 which is pending for trial of the case to secure the ends of justice.”

3. Brief facts of the case are that on 09.10.2023, ward boy, namely, Duryodhan of the Regional Hospital, Chirmiri lodged the merg intimation in Police Station Chirmiri on the basis of which, FIR bearing No. 367 of 2023 was registered against the present petitioner, namely, Deepanshu @ Honey and other three co-accused persons who are juvenile. It is alleged that on 08.10.2023 at about 4.00 p.m., deceased, Vaibhav Singh was attacked by the present petitioner and other three co-accused persons at Godripara, Near Zero Cafe, Chirmiri because deceased confronted one of the juvenile about abusing his girlfriend, who is also juvenile. It is alleged that the deceased was under acute mental agony and has committed suicide on 09.10.2023 in his house by hanging, thereby the offence has been committed by the present petitioner and other three co-accused person. After investigation, the Police Station Chirmiri has filed the charge-sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chirmiri against the petitioner only as the other three co-

accused, who are juvenile, therefore, the Police Station Chirmiri has excluded the name of the minor accused persons. The charge-sheet has been filed against the minor accused before the Juvenile Court, Baikunthpur which is pending under consideration.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. He would further submit that the incident took place on 08.10.2013 whereas FIR was lodged on 13.10.2023, thus there was delay of 05 days in lodging the FIR and for that no explanation has been given by the complainant. He further submits that the prosecution has cooked up a concocted story against the petitioner just to harass and implicate in the crime in question. The present petitioner and the deceased were not known to each other, even at the time of suicide the petitioner was not present there. He also submits that the mother of the deceased Smt. Reena Singh herself admitted and contended in Police Station statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. that the deceased was committed suicide on refusal to give the key of the motorcycle to the deceased, thus, from the perusal of the statement, it is ample clear that the petitioner has not provoked the deceased for committing suicide. He also states that from perusal of the Police statement of the close relative of the deceased, there is no prima facie case against the petitioner and even, the other witnesses were not stated any adverse contentions against the petitioner.

5. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that from bare perusal of the FIR, ingredient of abatement as provided in Section 107 of the IPC is not available which is main ingredient to attract Section 306 of the IPC. To substantiate his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner would refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh reported in (2001) 9 SCC 618

6. On the other, learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the investigation has been done stri