IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1155 of 2025 LALIT AND OTHERS Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Shri Padmnabh Saxena - Advocate for the petitioners.

Shri Rahul Solanki - Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.

WITH CRIMINAL REVISION No. 377 of 2025 NILESH AND OTHERS Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Shri Rajesh Yadav - Advocate for the petitioners.

Shri Rahul Solanki - Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.

HEARD ON : 31.07.2025 POSTED ON : 28.11.2025 ORDER Regard being had to the similitude of controversy involved in the aforementioned petitions, they are being heard analogously and disposed of by this common order.

02. Both the revision petitions are preferred challenging the legality of order dated 19.12.2024 passed in S.T.No.175/2024 by the Session Judge, Jhabua whereby charges under Section 306 r/w section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 r/w section 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Protection of Debtors Act, 1973 have been framed against the petitioner in a case arising out of Crime No.569/2024 registered at Police Station Jhabua, District Jhabua, M.P.

03. Facts of the case in brief are that an unnatural death No.75/2024 was registered at Police Station Jhabua on the intimation of Sanskar Khatri regarding death of his father by suicide on 23.05.2024 at the residence situated at Shree Nath Residency Colony, Jhabua. After enquiry, F.I.R. was registered under Section 306 r/w section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against six persons namely Nilesh Ghodawat, Dinesh Ghodawat, Lalit Rathore, Subhashchandra, Vickky @ Vitrag @ Vikrant and Jitendra Pawar in the form of Crime No.569/2024. After investigation, a final report was submitted under Section 306 r/w 34 of the IPC and Section 4 r/w section 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Protection of Debtors Act, 1973 before the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jhabua and on committal Session Trial No.175/2024 was registered and charges as mentioned in para 1 were framed against all the six accused persons.

04. Challenging the framing of charges, Revision Petition No.377/2025 was preferred by Nilesh Ghodawat and Dinesh Ghodawat and another Criminal Revision No.1155/2025 was preferred by Lalit and Vikky @ Vitrag @ Vikrant. Through both the revision petitions framing of charges has been assailed on the ground that no ingredients of Section 306 as well as Section 107 of the IPC are attracted as there is no intention of the present petitioners for abetment to commit suicide by the deceased. They substantiate their grounds referring to the various judgments i.e. Chitresh Kumar Chopra vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) reported in (2009) 16 SCC 605, S.S. Cheena 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, M. Mohan vs. State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, reported in AIR 2011 SC 1238, Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal vs. State of Gujraj, reported in 2013 Cr.L.R. (SC) 955.

05. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the revision petitions and submitted that the material collected during the investigation raises grave suspicious regarding framing of charges under Section 306 of the IPC and Section 4 r/w section 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Protection of Debtors Act, 1973, no case for interference in charges is made out.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

06. Final report submitted under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 and the list of documents appended with the final report containing 38 entries reveals that deceased Shashikant Khatri was running a mobile shop titled as Khatri Mobile Point situated at Radhakrishna Marg, Jhabua. Shashikant Khatri took a loan to construct a house from Nilesh Ghodawat, Dinesh Ghodawat, Lalit Rathore, Subhashchandra, Vickky @ Vitrag @ Vikrant. The details of loan transactions are mentioned as Shashikant Khatri took a loan of Rs.12,00,000/-