ORDER

This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 has been filed with a prayer to quash the registration of offences of Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Section 66 of the Information Technology Act registered at Crime No.570/2022 at Police Station Makhan Nagar, district Narmadapuram, and also a criminal case registered on the basis of this FIR as SC ATR No.220/2022 (State of M.P. v. Vijay Gurjar)

pending before the Special Judge, Narmadapuram.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 3.10.2022 deceased committed suicide by hanging herself. Marg enquiry was conducted in which the statements of witnesses were recorded. In this enquiry, it was revealed that the petitioner was harassing the deceased and was pressurizing her to get married to him. It was also revealed that the petitioner was insulting the deceased by referring to her caste name and was making viral her obscene photographs on Whatsapp and Instagram. The relatives of deceased tried to make the petitioner understand but he gave threats to them. Upon being harassed continuously, the deceased succumbed to mental pressure and on account of ignominy committed suicide. In the existence of these facts, the FIR was registered against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences.

3. In this petition, the grounds raised for quashing the FIR and also the consequent proceedings are that the allegations against the present petitioner do not fall within the purview of Section 107 of IPC or for that matter of Section 306 of IPC and no presumption can be drawn under Sections 113-A or 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act. A story of love relation has been cooked up by the relatives of deceased many days after the incident of suicide. The petitioner is a law abiding person and has no criminal antecedents. He is being victimized by the family members of deceased. Various case laws have been cited to show that no case is made out against the petitioner. It is, therefore, prayed that the FIR and the consequent proceedings be quashed.

4. Learned counsel for the State as well as the objector has opposed the request made by the petitioner claiming that there is ample evidence available against the petitioner about the commission of alleged offences, hence, no interference is warranted here.

5. Heard learned respective counsel for the parties, perused the order and the record.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pressed upon the fact that there is no evidence about any abetment or inducement committed by the petitioner to instigate the deceased to commit suicide, hence, no case is made out against the petitioner. He has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2010) 1 SCC 750 to give strength to his arguments. In that case, it was observed that abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing and without a positive act on the part of accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. It has also been observed that there should be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. In the present case, it is alleged that the petitioner was not only exercising pressure upon the deceased to give assent to marriage with the petitioner but to mount this pressure he was putting the obscene photographs of deceased to go viral on Whatsapp and Instagram. These acts of the petitioner reflect upon active exercise of harassment and these acts showcase his intention to push the deceased to such a state where she was left with no other option except to face the future life in ignominy. In the case of Gangula Mohan Reddy (supra) the Apex Court has observed that the victim was hypersensitive and ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life, quite common to society, led her to commit suicide. In the present case