Ashish Raj vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court and to quash the FIR No.206/2017

registered at Police Station Sanjeevani Nagar, District Jabalpur for offences under Section 306 read with Section 201 of I.P.C. against the petitioner.

Bereft of the unnecessary details, the facts requisite for the disposal of this petition are that marriage of Dr. (Smt.) Shubhra with Dr. Ashok

Vidyarthi was performed on 22.05.2003 at Raipur. They have two daughters due to their wedlock namely Mishthi @ Hanshika aged about 10 years

and Pihu @ Alisha aged about 04 years. The relationship of Dr. (Smt.) Shubhra and Dr. Ashok Vidyarthi become estranged. Dr. Smt. Shubhra came

into contact with Dr. Ashish Raj, who is married to Dr. Yogita Raj. Because of the estranged relationship between the husband and Dr. (Smt.)

Shubhra. Dr. Ashish Raj helped Dr. (Smt.) Shubhra. Between Dr. (Smt.) Shubhra and Dr. Ashok Vidyarthi a decree of divorce has been granted on

30.06.2014. Dr. (Smt.) Shubhra committed suicide by hanging herself in her house on 11.06.2017 at about 7.00 pm at Ojas Home, Dhawantri Nagar.

Daughter of Dr. (Smt.) Shubhra, Mishthi @ Hanshika saw her mother hanging in her home and informed the maid who served with them for last

three years. The maid went to her home and saw Dr. (Smt.) Shubhra hanging. They informed her family members and family members reported to

police. Post mortem report reveals that Dr. (Smt.) Shubhra died due to asphyxia. A suicide note was recovered in which Dr. Smt. Shubhra has

mentioned that she loved her husband Dr. Ashok Vidyarthi and after him Dr. Ashish. It indicates that she had relationship with Dr. Ashish Raj. She

also writes that ‘she is not characterless, as has been alleged, neither she is mad. But she is broken due to the circumstances’.

The statements of the witnesses and the minor children indicate that there has been quarrel between Dr. Ashish Raj and deceased Dr. (Smt.)

Shubhra, therefore, the deceased was harassed and tortured mentally and physically, hence, the deceased committed suicide.

Crime No.206/2017 was registered at Sanjeevani Nagar for the offence under Section 306 of the I.P.C. against the petitioner.

On behalf of the petitioner Dr. Ashish Raj, it is claimed that the petitioner is innocent. He has been helping Dr. Smt. Shubhra and her family when

they were in need. It is also claimed that the deceased committed suicide on 11.06.2017. Petitioner was out of Jabalpur since 04.06.2017. The

petitioner along with his parents and children went to Bhopal by road and his parents left Bhopal for Mumbai on 06.06.2017. On 10.06.2017, the

petitioner along with his family went to Wardha (Maharashtra) by road, where his wife Dr. Yogita Raj is pursing M.D. Degree. It is also contended

that after 25 days of the incident, the said FIR has been lodged against the petitioner. The petitioner had no dispute with the deceased. The petitioner

claimed that the deceased lodged a report against some tantriks alleging that they had disturbed her life and received huge amount of money by

inducing her. The said report was transferred to Police Station Katni for investigation. The deceased was also under going treatment from the

psychiatrist at Nagpur. The petitioner had neither instigated nor abetted the deceased to commit suicide. There was no reason to do so. The petitioner

also claimed that the petitioner had cordial relation with the deceased but the applicant has been falsely implicated by the police at the behest of her

husband after 25 days of the incident. There is no material to implicate the petitioner in the present case, for he had neither aided nor instigated the

commission of the act.

On behalf of the respondent-State the submissions are opposed on the grounds that earlier a complaint was lodged at the instance of the deceased

against the petitioner for the offence under Section 376 of the IPC. Subsequently, the divorce decree against her husband was passed. The petitioner

was also responsible for the decree of divorce. By the dying declaration indicates that the applicant had relationship with the deceased after the

divorce from her husband (Dr. Ashok Vidyarthi). The petitioner also harassed the deceased by casting aspersion on her character. Therefore, she had

left with no other alternative except to commit suicide.

On behalf of the respondent no.2- complainant (the father of the deceased), the application is vehemently opposed and it is contended that the

petitioner Dr. Ashish Raj is solely responsible for the death of the deceased. He somehow managed to keep relationship with the deceased Dr. (Smt.)

Shubhra and because of the petitioner only the divorce took place. Subsequently, the petitioner did not keep the deceased happy. She was harassed

and cruelty was caused to her. Referring to the affidavit dated 15.01.2015 executed by the deceased, it is stated that after the decree of divorce on

30.06.2014, she married to the petitioner Dr. Ashish Raj. She even changed her name from Dr. (Smt.) Shubhra Vidyarthi to Dr. (Smt.) Shubhra Raj

and started writing wife of Dr. Ashish Raj in place of Dr. Ashok Vidyarthi. It is also claimed that the petitioner Dr. Ashish Raj sent so many

messages to her, in such filthy words, she was constantly harassed and the messages in her cell phone sent by the petitioner repeatedly given rise to

the incident. The affidavit dated 15.01.2015 executed by Dr. Smt. Shubhra shows that she was married for the second time with the petitioner Dr.

Ashish Raj. She will now be known as Dr. (Smt.) Shubhra Raj, but subsequent thereto the petitioner constantly harassed her and treated her with

cruelty, in such a manner that she had no other option except to commit suicide.

Heard the arguments at length.

The suicide note of the deceased is reproduce below for the better understanding of the case :-

^^eSa vc vkSj thuk ugha pkgrh gw¡ blfy, [kqn dks [kRe dj jgh gw¡A

esjs ejus ds ckn esjh cfPp;ksa dks v'kksd ys tkuk pkgs rks ys tkus nsukA  Â

v'kksd ds ckn esjk vk'kh""k ds vykok fdlh ls dksbZ laca/k ugha FkkAÂ Â Â

esjs ejus ds ckn esjs fy, cgqr ckrs gksxhA ij eSa Characterless ugha gw¡ vkSj uk gh ikxy gw¡A cl gkykrksa ls

VwV xbZ gw¡] blfy, [kqn dks [kRe dj jgh gw¡A fe""Bh ls eSaus dHkh dqN ugha Nqik;kA  Â

fe""Bh] figw eq>s ekQ djukA vkidh eEeh detksj fudyhA gkykrksa ls yM+ ugha ikbZA vki nksuksa dks vc [kqn viuk [;ky j[kuk iM+sxkA

esjs ejus esa gh lc dh HkykbZ gSA dqN v/kwjs liuksa ds lkFk bl nqfu;k dks NksM+ jgh gw¡A eSa nks Calmpose dh xksyh Hkh [kk jgh gw¡A

fe""Bh rqe eq>s dHkh xyr ugha le>ukA vk'kh""k eSa rqels vkSj fe""Bh] figw ls cgqr I;kj djrh gw¡A

rqe rhuksa viuk [;ky j[kukA rqe rhuksa dks cgqr lk I;kjA

eq>s ekQ dj nsukA

&'kqHkzk**

The suicide note indicates that the deceased had a marital relationship with the petitioner Dr. Ashish Raj after the divorce of her husband Dr.

Ashok Vidyarthi. It is also indicated that the deceased was in love with the petitioner Dr. Ashish Raj, who is already married man. The petitioner did

not keep his promises and despised her and constantly quarreling with her and making her feel insecure, hence, the deceased committed suicide.

Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Gurcharan Singh vs. State of Punjab (2017) 1 SCC 433, Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar vs. State

of M.P. (2002) 5 SCC 371, Sameer Garg vs. State of M.P. M.Cr.C. No.11321/2017 decided on 28.06.2018, M. Mohan vs. State (2011) 3 SCC 626,

Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of Gujarat and another (2010) 8 SCC 628, Swamy Prahaladdas vs State of M.P. and another 1995 Supp (3) SCC 438,

Ramsevak Shivhare and another vs. State of M.P. 2017 SCC Online M.P. 7668 and Phool Singh vs. State of M.P. 2017 (IV) MPJR 68 in support of

his contentions.

Per contra, counsel for the respondent no.1 has placed reliance on Anil Kumar Sahu vs. Laxmi and another 2005 (3) M.P.L.J., State of A.P. vs.

Gourishetty Mahesh 2010 Cri.L.J. 3844 and P.S. Meherhomji vs. K.T. Vijay Kumar and others 2015 (1) SCC 788 in support of his contentions.

It is the established that the criminal complainant need not be quashed where ingredients of offence are disclosed. The interference must be on

sound principles. This power should not be exercised to stifle legitimate prosecution. The statements of the witnesses including the minor Mishthi @

Hanshika and the maid servant and the documents clearly indicate that, the petitioner is at fault and there is a reasonable certainty to incite the

consequence capable of being spelt out. The present one is a case, where the accused had by his acts or by a continued course of conduct created

such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case instigation may have been inferred.

Therefore, petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is dismissed.