2023 Supreme(Online)(MP) 26134
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Smt. Anita – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
MCRC 32546/2022
Yogesh Kumar Gupta,Advocate General
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA th ON THE 8 OF SEPTEMBER, 2023 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 32546 of 2022 BETWEEN:-
SMT. ANITA W/O RAVINDRA JI BHIMGADE, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCCUPATION: GOVT. SERVANT H-07, DIET CAMPUS, BIJALPUR, A.B. ROAD, INDORE AND P.S.
RAJENDRA NAGAR, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT (BY SHRI YOGESH KUMAR GUPTA- APPLICANT.)
AND THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION RAJENDRA NAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS ( BY SHRI TARUN PAGARE- GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
(DR. VIVEK PANDEY- ADVOCATE/ COMPLAINT) MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 10160 of 2022 BETWEEN:-
1. PRASHANT SHASTRI S/O LATE LAXMIKANT SHASTRI, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCCUPATION: GOVT. JOB G-1, DIET PARISAR, BIJALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. ANVITA SHASTRI W/O PRASHANT SHASTRI, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCCUPATION: GOVT. JOB G-1, DIET PARISAR, BIJALPUR INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT (BY SHRI VIVEK SINGH-ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION RAJENDRA NAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. PINKI GUPTA W/O LATE SUNIL GUPTA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR R/O DIET CAMPUS, BIJALPUR SQUARE, RAJENDRA NAGAR, (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS ( BY SHRI TARUN PAGARE- GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
BY SHRI DR. VIVEK PANDEY- ADVOCATE /COMPLAINANT)
This application coming on for orders this day, the court passed the following:
ORDER
Both the Misc. Criminal Case are arisen out same crime number, therefore same are decided by this common order.
Misc. Criminal Case No.32546/2022 is filed by Anita Bhimgade seeking quashment of charge-sheet in Crime No.675/2020 registered at Police Station Rajendra Nagar, District Indore for the offence punishable under Section 306/34 of IPC and subsequent proceedings of S.T.No.851/2021 pending before XXVIIth Additional Session Judge, District Indore.
2. M.Cr.C. No.10160/2022 is filed by applicant No.1 Prashant Shastri and applicant No.2 Anvita Shastri) seeking quashment of subsequent proceedings of S.T. No.851/2021 pending before the XXVIIth Additional Session Judge, District Indore.
3. As per prosecution story, on 23.7.2020, 'Merg' was registered at No.25/2020 u/s. 174 of the Cr.P.C. upon receipt of information about the death of Sunil Gupta aged about 45 years resident of DIET campus who handed himself in his house. Initially, the investigation was carried out by Sub Inspector Ms. Sushma Patolia. She recovered the dead body from the house and sent for postmortem and as per postmortem report, Sunil Gupta died because of asphyxia as a result of hanging. A suicide note was also recovered from the room in which, deceased named Anita Bhimgade – Office Superintendent; Anvita Shastri – Assistant Gr.II; and Prashant @ Raja Shastri – Assistant Gr.II, who said to have pressurised him for vacating the house situated in the campus of DIET. The deceased also written in the suicide note that he used to deposit some amount on monthly basis, which is now Rs.3,35,000/- with Prashant @ Raja, which he is not returning, therefore, he is committing suicide. The police recorded the statements of wife – Pinku, daughter – Harshita and son – Durgesh and registered the FIR on 29.11.2020 against the present applicants for the offence punishable under Section 306/34 of IPC.
3. After arguing at length Shri Vivek Singh learned counsel for the applicant submits that he is not pressing the M.Cr.C. No.10160/2022 for Prashant Shastri as he is specifically named in the suicide note and will face the trial.
4. In view of above, M.Cr.C. No.10160/2022 is dismissed as not pressed in respect of applicant No. Prashant Shastri.
5. Learned counsels appearing for the applicants in both the M.Cr.Cs.
submit that applicant – Anita Bhimgade is Office Superintendent and the deceased was illegally residing in a house which was in dilapidated condition situated in the DIET campus. He and his family was occupying government house without any permission from the Principal and this fact has been v