Rohit Yadav vs State of M.P.

S.K. Palo, J.—The petitioner has filed this application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court and to quash the FIR of Crime No. 204/2013, dated 16-9-2013 registered at Police Station, Bhander, District Datia under Section 306/ 34 of IPC. It is alleged that the petitioner alongwith co-accused persons were threating the deceased-Seema Lodhi and her husband Bahadur Singh Lodhi by telephone and they were also stalking them while they were going to their office. Once the accused persons had followed by the motorcycle and overtaking Bahadur Singh Lodhi and Smt. Seema Lodhi tried to abuse them. They used to harass them. Because of this, after about 2-3 months, on 13-9-2013, Bahadur Singh and his wife Seema committed suicide at their residence. The Police Station, Bhander registered the FIR after preliminary inquiry under Section 306/ 34 of IPC against the petitioners.

Heard.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that by any imagination the petitioner cannot hold to have abated the offence of suicide.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application and submitted that because of threatening on phone calls by the petitioner and the co-accused persons, Bahadur Singh Lodhi and his wife Seema Lodhi died. Therefore, Section 306 of IPC is attracted.

In State of West Bengal Vs. Orilal Jaiswal and another, , has held:--

"This Court has cautioned that the Court should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end the life by committing suicide. If it appears to the Court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the Court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty."

In the case of Sohan Raj Sharma Vs. State of Haryana, , has held:--

"The alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide."

In case of Gangula Mohan Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, , by the Hon''ble Apex Court further reiterated and held that:--

"Abatement involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing-- Without a positive act on part of accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained-- In order to convict a person under Section 306, there has to be a clear mens rea to commit offence-- It also requires an active act or direct act, which leads deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push deceased into such a position that he commits suicide-- Also, reiterated, if it appears to Court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to society to which victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstances individual in a given society to commit suicide, conscience of Court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that accused charged of abetting suicide should be found guilty--Herein, deceased was undoubtedly hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord circumstances of case, none of the ingredients of offence under Section 306 made out-- Hence, appellant''s conviction, held unsustainable."

In view of the matter, the action of the petitioner may fall in different category of crime but not under "abetment to commit suicide". Be that as it may, in the present case, the abetment for committing suicide is lacking. Therefore, this Court is inclined to exercise powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and the petition is allowed. The FIR registered at Crime No. 204/2013, dated 16-9-2013 under Section 306/ 34 of IPC and further proceedings are hereby quashed. Further, it is made clear that if the petitioner is held liable for any other offence, the respondents are free to take action as per law.