IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA th ON THE 9 OF FEBRUARY, 2024 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 6015 of 2024 BETWEEN:-

RAJU @ RAJESH SAIN S/O SOORATRAM SAIN, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE R/O: GRAM KARJU, BHAUGARH DISTRICT MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (BY MS. SHRADDHA DIXIT - ADVOCATE)

AND THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION BHAUGARH, DIST. MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENT (MS. VINITA DWIVEDI - PANEL LAWYER)

This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

1. Heard.

2. This petition has been preferred under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C by t h e petitioner / accused for quashing the FIR registered vide crime No.273/2019, at police station Bhaugarh, District Mandsaur and all the consequential proceedings of Sessions Trial No.62/2020, pending before the Sessions Court, Mandsaur for alleged offence punishable under Section 306/34 Signature Noot Vf etrhifeie dIPC.

Signed by: SHILPA Signing time: 2/12/2024 3. As per the prosecution, the deceased Ranu committed suicide on

3/10/2019 at about 2.00 PM by pouring kerosene oil upon herself inside her house. On her death merg was registered and investigation was commenced and statements of witnesses were recorded from which it appeared that the petitioner Raju used to make efforts for talking to the deceased and used to call her on her phone. On 30/10/2019 also when the parents of the deceased had gone out, the petitioner had called the deceased to his house and she had gone over there to meet him. At that time co-accused Mahesh came there and saw the petitioner and the deceased in a compromising position. He there upon beat the deceased and an altercation took place between the petitioner, Mahesh and the deceased. The petitioner and Mahesh harassed the deceased mentally and also insulted her. As a result of the harassment having been meted out to her by the petitioner and co-accused, the deceased committed suicide. After completion of the investigation the FIR was registered and subsequently charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences before the Court concerned.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the case. The entire allegations as leveled against the petitioner even if taken to be true at their face value do not amount to an offence punishable under Section 306/34 of the IPC. There is no allegation against the petitioner of instigating or abetting the deceased in any manner to commit suicide and it cannot be said that due to act of the petitioner, the deceased had no other option but to commit suicide. She had various other legal remedies available to her. The act alleged against the petitioner is that he used to talk with deceased on phone and was seen in compromising position Signature Not Verified with her and had harassed her and insulted her. The same cannot in any manner Signed by: SHILPA

3:59:16 PM be said to be abetment or instigation or even a remote cause for the deceased to commit suicide. It is hence submitted that the FIR registered against the petitioner be quashed.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State has submitted that there is sufficient material available on record to proceed against the petitioner and it cannot be said that no offence whatsoever is made out in view of which the petition deserves to be dismissed.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have perused the record.

7. Section 107 of the IPC makes it obligatory for the prosecution to show and establish the elements of instigation. The Apex Court in the case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Senger V/s. State of M.P., AIR 2002 SC 1998 has opined as under :-

"13. ... Even if we accept the prosecution story that the appellant did tell the deceased “to go and die”, that itself does not constitute the ingredient of “instigation”. The w