Framing of charges requires a prima facie case, without deep analysis of evidence. Harassment contributing to suicide can constitute abetment under IPC.

1. In this revision under S.397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , the applicants have challenged the validity of the order dated 11.01.2021 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad in ST No. 32 of 2020 whereby charges for commission of offence punishable under S.306, S.506 (I) / 34 of the Indian Penal Code and S.4 of the MP Riniyon Ka Sanrakshan Adhiniyam , 1937 have been framed.

2. As per the prosecution case, Rajendra Sarathe (since deceased) committed suicide by hanging himself on 01.06.2019. An FIR has been lodged on 01.06.2019 at police station - Kotwali, Hoshangabad and on the basis of statements of sons of the deceased namely, Rahul Sarathe and Nitin Sarathe wherein they stated that Vikalp Deriya, Kayakalp Deriya, Keerti Mishra, Deepak Parsai, Rajeev Dubey and Mukesh Agnihotri used to torture and harass Rajendra Sarathe (since deceased) for demand of money and they also threatened him that they would kill the entire family. From the aforesaid accused persons, Rajendra Sarathe (since deceased) had borrowed certain amount of loan and the accused persons were torturing and pressurising the deceased for repayment of the said amount of loan. It is alleged that deceased had purchased the material from the shop of the accused persons worth Rs. 1,73,000/- and had issued many cheques as guarantee of the balance amount. Thereafter he returned money to the accused persons in cash but the applicants and other accused persons did not return the cheques issued by the deceased as guarantee. Despite the entire amount was paid by the deceased, the accused persons filed complaint case for offence under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the Court of CJM, Hoshangabad only to harass the deceased.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the trial Court has committed apparent error in framing charges under S.306 and S.506 (I) / 34 of the Indian Penal Code and S.4 of the M.P. Riniyon Ka Sanrakshan Adhiniyam, 1937. From the documents of the prosecution itself, it is apparent that the deceased had borrowed certain money from the applicant and other co - accused persons but he could not refund the same and committed suicide. Hence, keeping in view the provision of S.107 of the IPC, no offence is made out. Therefore, prayer has been made to quash the impugned order dated 11.01.2021 by which charges have been framed against the applicant. In support of his contentions, counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on the decisions in the cases of Amit Asthana v. State of M.P. (M.Cri.C. No.18945 of 2022 decided on 05.07.20222)(AIROnLine 2022 MP 2438) ; Vishnu Prasad v. State of MP 2005 (5) MPHT 62 : (AIROnLine 2005 MP 23) ; Ram Naresh and Another v. State of M.P., 2002 (2) MPLJ 360 : (AIROnLine 2002 MP 16); M. Arjunan v. State , AIR 2019 SC 43 ; and Mayank Sharma v. State of MP (M.Cri.C. No.3107 of 2018 decided on 06.12.2018) (AIROnLine 2018 MP 1318 ).

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State as well as counsel for the objector opposed the contentions raised by the counsel for the applicant. It is contended that if the suicide note and statements are perused, a clear case of framing of charges exists in the present scenario.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as well as the decisions relied upon by the applicants and other decisions in the field. The police has seized a suicide note of four pages from the spot. Along with the said suicide note, another 13 pages written note addressed to the wif