ORDER

Heard finally, with the consent of the parties 2]

This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR, charge-sheet and the subsequent proceedings in connection with Crime No.344/2023 registered at Police Station Sitamau, District Mandsaur, whereby, a case has been registered against the petitioner under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

3]

In brief, the facts of the case are that the petitioner’s husband Shantilal committed suicide on 03.06.2023, by consuming celphos and before that, he also wrote a suicide note alleging that he is committing suicide only because of his wife, who has harassed him and in the said suicide note, he has also asked his brother to take care of their parents.

4]

Shri Palash Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that there is absolutely nothing on record to connect the present petitioner with the aforesaid offence, as the ingredients of abetment are clearly missing in the present case and even assuming the charge-sheet to be correct, in that case also, it cannot be culled out that there was any abetment on the part of the petitioner, which led her husband to commit suicide.

5]

In support of his submissions, counsel has also relied upon the various decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others reported as (2021) 2 SCC 427; K.V. Prakash Babu Vs. State of Karnataka reported as (2017) 11 SCC 176; Amalendu Pal Vs. State of West Bengal reported as (2010) 1 SCC 707; Bhagwan Das Vs.

Kartar Singh and Others, reported as (2007) 11 SCC 205;

Gurucharan Singh Vs. State of Punjab, passed in CRA No.40/2011. Reliance is also placed on the decision rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Mahesh Sen Vs. State of M.P. and others, passed in M.Cr.C. No.39344/2021 dated 22.01.2024. 6]

Counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and it is submitted that no case for interference is made out, as the deceased has not only left a suicide note alleging sheer harassment at the hands of his wife, the petitioner herein, but in the statement of his brother also, it is also apparent that the petitioner was in the habit of harassing her husband, the deceased, every now and then even for the trivial household matters. Thus, it is submitted that the petition being devoid of merits, is liable to be dismissed.

7]

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8]

From the record it is found that the deceased Shantilal Porwal died by consuming celphos and before that, he has also left a suicide note, though not a detailed one, but clearly indicating that it was his wife only who had harassed him to such an extent, which has led him to commit suicide. The suicide note was written on 02.06.2023, whereas, the deceased has committed suicide on 03.06.2023. There is nothing on record to demonstrate that the said suicide note has not been written by the deceased and in fact, the petitioner has also not denied the same in the petition. A perusal of the statements of the deceased Shantilal’s brother Sukhlal clearly reveals that Shantilal’s wife, the petitioner herein, was in the habit of harassing him and that too only on account of some trivial household disputes, and she would leave her house to reside with her parents and would not come for months together. She also used to threaten his brother on his mobile and wanted him to take her to some other place, away from his family members and other allegations have also been levelled by him against the petitioner, who happens to be his sister-in-law.

Similar statements have also been given by the other family members.

9]

In such facts and circumstances of the case, in the light of the aforesaid statements of the prosecution witnesses, coupled with the fact that the deceased has also left a suicide note against his own wife, this Court is of the considered opinion that