IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE

th

ON THE 9 OF OCTOBER, 2025 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 42516 of 2024 RAMU VISHWAKARMA AND OTHERS Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Manoj Kumar Dwivedi - Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms Kalpana Parmar P L appearing on behalf of Advocate General.

Shri Priyanshu Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent [R-2].

ORDER This petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 CrPC) has been filed by the petitioners seeking quashment of the order of cognizance dated 29.08.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Lahar, District Bhind, in UNCR No. 155/2023 (Hariom vs. Ramu & Ors.), and also for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings arising out of Crime No. 52/2024, registered at Police Station Aswar, District Bhind, for offences punishable under Sections 306 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The respondent no. 2/complainant filed a private complaint before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Lahar, District Bhind (M.P.), alleging that the present petitioners continuously harassed and tortured the deceased, which ultimately led to his committing suicide. On the basis of the said complaint, the learned Magistrate passed an order dated 29.08.2024, directing registration of an FIR, pursuant to which Crime No. 52/2024 was registered at Police Station Aswar, District Bhind (M.P.), for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Prior to this, the complainant had also moved an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned trial court seeking a direction to the police to register an FIR and investigate the matter. The learned Magistrate, upon due consideration of the complaint and accompanying documents, found that no prima facie case was made out under Section 306 IPC, as the material on record indicated that the deceased had committed suicide of his own volition, without any proximate act of instigation, aid, or abetment by the petitioners. Accordingly, the application under Section 156(3) CrPC was rejected, holding that the death of the deceased was due to suicide and not caused by any inducement or influence from the petitioners. Being aggrieved by the rejection of his application, the complainant preferred a Criminal Revision, registered as Criminal Revision No. 7/2023, before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahar, District Bhind (M.P.). The learned Revisional Court, after hearing both parties, dismissed the revision petition vide order dated 16.06.2023, affirming the findings of the trial court. Despite the above concurrent findings, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Lahar, subsequently took cognizance of the offences under Sections 306 and 34 IPC vide order dated 29.08.2024, without any new or additional material on record to justify such cognizance. Being aggrieved by the impugned order of cognizance and the resultant criminal proceedings in Crime No. 52/2024, the petitioners have preferred the present petition seeking quashment of the same.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order of cognizance is ex facie illegal and unsustainable in law, as the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance without any new evidence or material to establish the ingredients of abetment under Section 306 IPC. Mere allegations of harassment or strained relations are insufficient to attract the offence of abetment of suicide. In order to constitute an offence under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear and specific evidence of instigation, intentional aid, or active participation in the act of suicide, which is completely absent in the present case. Both the trial court and the revisional court have already examined the same allegations and found no prima facie case for directing registration of an FIR. Therefore, the subsequent order of co