IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA st ON THE 1 OF SEPTEMBER, 2023 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 36881 of 2023 BETWEEN:-

CHANDU @ CHANDRASHEKHAR S/O HARIRAM SUNHARE, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR, R/O 78 VALMIKI NAGAR INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (BY SHRI NEERAJ SIRESIYA - ADVOCATE)

AND THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE OFFICER THROUGH PS BANGANGA (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENT (BY SHRI GAURAV SINGH CHAUHAN - DEPUTY GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

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

ORDER

This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the petitioner/accused for quashment of FIR No.784/2021 registered at Police Station Banganga, District Indore for offences punishable under Section 306 of the IPC and all subsequent proceedings pursuant thereto.

2. As per the prosecution on 13.03.2021 deceased Ramsanjeevan committed suicide by hanging himself in his house. On intimation being furnished to the Police, merg was registered and investigation was commenced during the course of which statements of witnesses were recorded and a writing Signature Not Verified Signed by: JYOTI of the deceased on the wall was found in which it was stated that the petitioner has not given him an amount of Rs.90,000/- which was due to him. As a result of the constant harrasment having been faced by him on account of non- payment of money due to him from the petitioner, Ramsanjeevan committed suicide. On completion of the investigation, charge sheet has been filed by the Police before the Court concerned for the offences as aforesaid.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the initiation and continuation of the proceedings against him are a gross abuse of the process of law. Even if the entire allegations as levelled against the petitioner in the charge sheet are taken to be true, no offence under Section 306 of the IPC is made out against him. There is no allegation that the petitioner instigated or abetted the deceased in any manner to commit suicide or that due to his acts the deceased had no other options but to commit suicide. He had various other legal options available to him. The only allegation against the petitioner is that he was not returning the amount to the deceased which he owned. He never committed any act which might have been a cause for the deceased to commit suicide. It is submitted that no offence against the petitioner is made out hence the proceedings deserves to be quashed.

4. 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 against him hence the petition deserved to be dismissed.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case diary as well as the record.

6. The interpretation of Section 107 and 306 of the IPC has been subject Signature Not Verified Signed by: JYOTI matter of a number of decisions of the Supreme Court as well this Court and the law as has been settled in this regard is now quite clear. In one of such decision, the Supreme Court in M. Mohan vs. State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, 2011(3) SCC 626 has laid down in paragraph No.36 to 45 as under:

"36. We would like to deal with the concept of 'abetment'. Section 306 of the Code deals with 'abetment of suicide' which reads as under:

"306. Abetment of suicide - If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extent to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."

37. The word 'suicide' in itself is nowhere defined in the Indian Penal Code, however, its meaning and import is well known and requires no explanation. `Sui' means `self' and `cide' means `killing', thus implying an act of self-killing. In short a