Yogeshra Pandey & others vs State of M.P & another

This petition under section 482 of the Cr.P.C has been filed for quashment of the charge sheet of Crime No.1008/2016 of police station

Baidhan, District Singrauli filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baidhan, District Singrauli and further proceeding of Regular Case No.

61/2017.

The facts giving rise to this petition are that in the year 2013 marriage of applicant no.3/Babita @ Nisha Dubey was solemnized with Dheeraj

Kumar, who committed suicide on 31/01/2016 by hanging himself. It is alleged that the applicant no.3 Babita and her father applicant no.1 and

applicant no.2,4, and 5 brothers of the applicant no.3, tortured and harassed the deceased on account of matrimonial dispute with applicant

no.3/Babita and on the basis of aforesaid harassment and torture, the deceased committed suicide. Thereafter on the basis of Marg Intimation in

the police station Baidhan, District Singrauli offence against the applicants under section 306 read with section 34 of IPC as Crime No. 1008/2016

was registered on 29/11/2016 and it is found that the deceased left a diary in which he noted the cause of his suicidal death to be torture and

harassment given by the applicants and after investigation, the charge sheet was filed and learned trial court took cognizance and proceeding is

pending in the concerned trial court.

The applicants have challenged the proceedings on the ground that they have not committed any offence and the deceased has left Babita in the

year 2014. Thereafter she is residing in the parental house with other applicants and the matrimonial civil disputes were going on with the deceased.

Therefore, there was no occasion to give torture and harassment to the deceased by the applicants and taking recourse of civil litigation cannot be

said to be a harassment with a view to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Apart from it, the so called diary has been examined by the

handwriting expert and there is no opinion that the same was written by the deceased. Therefore against the applicants in the eye of law there is no

evidence to take cognizance of the offence. Hence the charge sheet and further proceedings are required to be set aside. If the proceeding is

continued, it would amount to misuse of the process of the law and cause grave injustice to the applicants.

The learned Government Advocate and counsel for the respondent no.2 have opposed the aforesaid contentions and prayed for dismissal of this

petition.

Having considered the contentions of learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the record, in view of this Court the contention of the

applicants have a substance and there is no material on record to suggest or to indicate the fact that the applicants harassed and tortured the

deceased. On behalf of the deceased the petition for divorce was filed on 07/08/2015 stating that since March 2014 the applicant no.3/Babita has

not been residing with him and this petition shows the differences between the deceased and applicant no.3/Babita. If any harassment and dispute

was taken place before March, 2014, the same cannot be consider to be an act of abetment for committing suicide on 31/01/2016 by the

deceased. There is no material in the charge sheet with regard to noting of the deceased against the applicants showing their alleged act comes into

the purview of torture and harassment to such extent which may be considered as an act of instigation to the deceased for committing suicide.

During the arguments, learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on a judgment of the Apex Court passed in the case of Kailashi Bai

Vs. Aarti Arya and another (2009)13 SCC 548, in which it was alleged that the wife harassed to the deceased husband because he belonging to

the higher caste and she did not like association of the deceased with his parents and relatives and due to this behaviour of his wife, husband

committed suicide and the wife was prosecuted and against her charge sheet was filed alleging abetment to commit suicide. Thereafter, this High

Court quashed the charge sheet on the ground that the ingredients of section 306 of IPC were not established from the facts of the case and the

Hon''ble the Apex Court has affirmed the findings.

In the present case also, prima facie there is no requisite ingredients to constitute the offence punishable under section 306 of IPC against the

applicants. Hence they can''t be prosecuted on the material available in the charge sheet. Therefore the petition is allowed and the charge sheet and

further proceeding pending before the trial court concerned are also quashed. A copy of this order be sent to the learned trial court concerned for

information.