Abetment to suicide under Section 306 IPC requires proof of a positive act of instigation or intentional aid with clear mens rea and a direct nexus to the suicide. Mere allegations of harassment or mention in a suicide note without proximate incitement do not justify criminal proceedings.

ORDER :

RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

This petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner for the quashing of the FIR (Crime No. 64/2022) and the resulting charge-sheet registered at Police Station City Basoda, District Vidisha. The petitioner seeks to quash the proceedings for offences punishable under Section 306/34 of the IPC, as well as all subsequent proceedings in S.T. No. 1333 of 2022 currently pending before the Trial Court, Ganj Basoda.

2. According to the prosecution’s case, on 12.02.2022, Mohan Lodhi, son of Ganga Ram Lodhi, committed suicide by hanging, following which Marg No. 15/22 was registered at P.S. City Basoda. During the investigation, an alleged suicide note was recovered in which the names of the present petitioner and other co-accused persons were mentioned with respect to alleged harassment and encroachment upon the deceased’s land. Following the Panchnama and autopsy, the post-mortem report concluded that the deceased died due to respiratory arrest and that the nature of death was suicidal. Consequently, an FIR was lodged against the present petitioner and other co-accused persons under Sections 306 and 34 of the IPC.

3. According to the statements of the family members, the deceased was engaged in the business of real estate and money lending. It is alleged that the deceased had sold plots to Mahesh Namdev and Praveen Jain; however, the present petitioner allegedly encroached upon the said plots. Consequently, the buyers did not receive possession, leading the co-accused to threaten the deceased with physical assault. Furthermore, allegations have been levelled that the petitioner, along with her family members, frequently visited the deceased’s residence to threaten him.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated, making this a clear case of abuse of the process of law. It is further submitted that the petitioner is the lawful owner of the land bearing Survey No. 196/1, admeasuring 0.209 hectares. The petitioner purchased the said land vide registered sale deed dated 02.09.2009, and the petitioner’s name is duly mutated in the revenue records. Upon these circumstances, the petitioner filed an application under Section 178 of the MPLRC before the concerned Tehsildar for the partition of the land. The Tehsildar subsequently allowed the application vide an order dated 28.04.2018.

5. Being aggrieved by the Tehsildar's order, the deceased, Mohan Lodhi, along with others, filed an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO). The Appellate Court allowed the said appeal vide an order dated 10.01.2019. In light of these circumstances, the petitioner and her family members have filed applications seeking a proper investigation, contending that their names have been wrongly implicated in the FIR.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no legal or admissible evidence against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the allegations leveled against the petitioner are false, frivolous, and vexatious, and lack material substance. It is further submitted that since the petitioner is the lawful owner of the land by virtue of a registered sale deed and her name is duly mutated in the revenue records, the dispute is, at best, of a civil nature which has been given the color of a criminal case. The present petitioner was not part of any conspiracy or misdeed regarding the sale transactions of the disputed land. Under such circumstances, the ingredients of the aforementioned sections are not attracted to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

7. It is further submitted that no complaint regarding harassment had ever been lodged against the present petitioner prior to this incident. The petitioner has not committed any offence of abetment or instigation. A bare perusal of the suicide note and the FIR reveals that the petitioner neither instigated the deceased to commit suicide, nor engaged in a conspir