IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR (VERMA)

ON THE 6^th OF MAY, 2022 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 22659 of 2022 Between:-

KAILASH NARAYAN SHUKLA S/O VIJAY NARAYAN SHUKLA , AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCCUPATION:

GOVT. SERVANT 27, BHARTIYA GRIHNIRMAN COLONY, MOTI BUNGALOW (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (BY SHRI VIVEK SINGH, ADVOCATE)

AND THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION CIVIL LINE (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI RAJESH JOSHI, GA FOR THE STATE )

This PETITION coming on for ADMISSION this day, but with the consent of parties, heard finally and the court passed the following:

ORDER

Present petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner under section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashment of the Criminal Case registered at S.T. No.31/2020 pending Before II ASJ, Dewas alongwith all subsequent proceedings pending against the petitioner under Section 306 and 120-B of IPC.

According to the prosecution story, on 19.12.2016, one Kailash Prasad Yadav resident of District Dewas has committed suicide by self immolation. The allegations against the petitioner are that the deceased had borrowed huge amount from various persons including the present petitioner. It is further alleged by the prosecution that the deceased was feeling harassed because of the regular demands made by the petitioner and other persons with regard to repayment of loan amount/borrowed amount due to which he has committed suicide. Thereafter, after the detailed enquiry, the petitioner was implicated in the present case.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by SAN AMIT KUMAR

11:41:32 IST has implicated falsely in the present case. The petitioner has been implicated only on the ground that he has given loan to the deceased, there is no direct or indirect evidence to connect the petitioner with the present applicant in the given facts and circumstances of case and the material available on record. It is also submitted that the petitioner was implicated only on the basis of his name mentioned in a diary which has been recovered from house of the deceased in which he used to write the entries of the amount borrowed from many persons. It is further submitted that there is absolutely no evidence of harassment or causing abetment to the deceased. Even dying declaration does not speak about the present petitioner and the deceased does not speak anything about the present petitioner in his dying declaration regarding any harassment, hence, there is no parameters of 'abetment' which has been stated in Section 107 of IPC. Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance in judgment of Chitresh Kumar Chopra vs. State of (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) reported in 2009 (16) SCC 605 where the person can be said to have abetted in doing a thing if he, firstly , instigates any person to do that thing; or secondly, engaged with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if any act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy and in order to the doing of that thing; or thirdly, intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. There is no ingredients of Section 306 of IPC.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further placed reliance over the judgments passed by apex Court in the case of S.S. Chena vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan & Another reported in 2010 (12) SCC 190, Gangula Mohan Reddy vs. State of A.P. reported in (2010) 1 SCC 750.

Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer by submitting that the petitioner in connivance with other co-accused person has harassed the deceased due to which he has committed suicide. The deceased has clearly mentioned his name in the dying declaration that he alongwith other persons have harassed the deceased due to non-payment of amount. In their statements recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., wife and sister of the deceased have