IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI ON THE 26^th OF MARCH, 2025 CRIMINAL REVISION No. 5955 of 2019 KAMAL KUMAR JAIN AND OTHERS Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Shri Deependra Kumar Mishra - Advocate for the petitioners.

Smt. Shanti Tiwari - Panel Lawyer for the State.

ORDER This is a revision petition seeking quashment of the order dated

05-09-2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Banda District Sagar by which charge against the present petitioner has been framed.

2. The facts of the case reveal that an FIR dated 05-07-2017 has been lodged against the present applicants by the Police Station, Banda District Sagar on the allegations that the deceased - Rajkumar Jain committed suicide, while leaving behind a suicide note. In the suicide note he levelled allegations that the present applicants had borrowed loan from him and as they were not making the payment of loan, the deceased committed suicide, as a result of which machinery of law was set in motion. The present applicants were prosecuted and charge-sheet was filed before the competent court of jurisdiction, which in turn Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJAY KUMAR committed the matter to the Court of Sessions and charge was framed against the applicants by the impugned order.

3. It is contended by the counsel for the applicants that in the present case, it is evident that there is no case of instigation within the meaning of Section 306 of IPC. It is contended by the counsel that to bring an offence within the ambit and scope of abetment, in terms of Section 107 of IPC, there has to be allegations containing direct and positive act against the accused persons, which ultimately constrained the deceased to commit suicide. In the present case, there are no allegations against the applicants that there was any instigation or inducement, which constrained the deceased to commit suicide. It is further contended by the counsel that there was no continuous force or conduct on the part of the present applicants, which persuaded the deceased to commit suicide. It is contended by the counsel that it was a purely commercial transaction and the commission of suicide cannot be attributed to the present applicants under the garb of allegations of instigation. Marg Intimation clearly reveals that it was not a case where the incident has any connection whatsoever with the present applicants. Later on, on the strength of the suicide note the present applicants sought to be implicated and as such the implication is unsustainable. Thus, the counsel for the applicants submits that the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. To buttress his submissions the counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court rendered Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJAY KUMAR in the case of Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh reported in (2001) 9 SCC 618.

4. The prayer was opposed by the counsel for the State while submitting that in the present case, there exists a suicide note which was left by the deceased. In the suicide note it was clearly stated that the present applicants were not returning the amount which was borrowed by them from the deceased and the deceased was induced as well. It is evident from the report filed under Section 155 of the CrPC dated 27-05- 2016 which also finds mention in the FIR. It is contended by the counsel that the aforesaid allegations are still to be tested on the anvil of the evidence which is to be adduced by the prosecution as well as defence, and hence, in this case no interference is warranted.

5. No other point is pressed or argued by the parties.

6. Having considered the submissions, perusal of the record reflects that the deceased committed suicide while leaving behind a suicide note which reveals that the present applicants had borrowed money from the deceased and said amount, according to the deceased was not being returned by the applicants, therefore, the deceased attr