IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA YADAV

th

ON THE 19 OF JANUARY, 2026 CRIMINAL REVISION No. 13 of 2023 RINKU LODHA Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Shri Manvardhan Singh Tomar - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Vikram Pippal - PP appearing on behalf of State.

ORDER The present criminal revision has been filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C against the order dated 08.12.2022 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Guna in ST No.241/2022, whereby charge under Section 306 of IPC was framed against the petitioner.

2. In nutshell, case of the prosecution is that on 13.09.2022 around 9 PM, one Bhagwan Singh committed suicide by hanging himself at cement pillar situated in Mata Temple, Guna. On 14.09.2022 at 1:53 AM "merg intimation no.96/2022" regarding un-natural death of Bhagwan Singh was recorded at P.S., Guna by Devendra Singh Lodha (brother of the deceased) inter-alia stating that reason for suicide is unknown to him. No suicide note was recovered from the spot.

3. During investigation, the police recorded the statements of five relatives of the deceased and two other persons. The relatives of the deceased in their statements levelled allegations against the petitioner that deceased Bhagwan Singh borrowed Rs.1 lakh from the petitioner and he harassed the deceased for demanding repayment of the loan amount. On the date of incident i.e. on 13.09.2022 the petitioner kept the motorcycle of the deceased and due to the said harassment he committed suicide. After investigation charge-sheet (annexure P/2) was filed. The charge under Section 306 of IPC was framed by the Court below vide order dated 08.12.2022 which is under challenge in the present revision.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that learned Court below framed the charges under Section 306 of IPC without considering the fact that the essential ingredients for constituting an offence under Section 306 of IPC of abatement by the accused person are missing. In the present case there is no such abetment on the part of petitioner to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the demand of repayment of loan amount or the alleged threatening in connection with the demand of money cannot be said to be a provocation for committing suicide under Section 107 of IPC. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon order of this Court passed in CRR No.3155/2019 dated 09.07.2019 (Rajesh s/o Mathuradas Advani vs. State of M.P.). Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that on the spot no suicide note was recovered and the charges have been framed only on the basis of statements of relatives. If statements of all the relatives of deceased, taken in toto, even then they do not constitute offence of abetment to commit suicide.

5. Per contra, prosecution has opposed the prayer and submitted that the wife of deceased disclosed before the police the reason of suicide and other witnesses have supported her statement, therefore, prima facie sufficient evidence is available on record for framing charges. From the statements it has come on record that on account of harassment by the petitioner for demand of money, the deceased has committed suicide, thus, it cannot be said that necessary factors for invoking Section 306 of IPC are absent and prayed for dismissal of the present revision.

6. I have heard the parties at length and perused the record.

7. The moot question in the present case is that even if the entire allegations are accepted as they are, then whether it can be said that the petitioner has committed an offence of abetment of suicide.

Before dealing with the matter, it would be apt to consider relevant provisions and judgments on the point.

8. For ready reference Section 306 of IPC is quoted herein below:- 306. Abetment of suicide.—If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished w