[ad_1]
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Kapil Ram @ Kapil Ram Singhani vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:19948) on 24 April, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:19948]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1300/2023
Kapil Ram @ Kapil Ram Singhani S/o Shri Kanhaiya Lal, Aged
About 45 Years, Residing At 312, Hari Nagar, Behind Vijaylaxmi
Apartment, Near Pf Office, Chopasni Housing Board, Jodhpur
Rajasthan
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Sandeep Singh S/o Shri Jeevan Singh Rajput, Residing At
60, Shiyana House, Subhash Chowk, Ratanada, Jodhpur,
Rajasthan
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vishwas Khatri
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Choudhary, AAG assisted
by Mr. Pawan Kumar Bhati, PP
Mr. BS Deora
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
REPORTABLE
24/04/2025
Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner
against the order dated 28.06.2023, passed by learned Additional
Session Judge No.4, Jodhpur Metro in Session Case No.129/2021,
whereby learned trial court framed the charges against the
petitioner for offence under Sections 306, 500, 501, & 504 IPC.
Brief facts of the case are that the complainant, Sandeep
Singh, submitted a written report to the S.H.O. of Police Station
Udaimandir, Jodhpur, concerning the untimely demise of his
younger brother, Narendra Singh, who was engaged in the
profession of a private cricket coach. In his report, Sandeep Singh
alleged that his brother had been subjected to animosity from
(Downloaded on 25/04/2025 at 11:53:39 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:19948] (2 of 17) [CRLR-1300/2023]
fellow cricket coaches, specifically the petitioner, Kapil Ram
Singhani and co-accused Pradhyut Singh Champawat. It was
claimed that this animosity manifested in the form of harassment
and threats directed towards the deceased on a social media
platform, specifically within a WhatsApp group. Consequently, it is
asserted that the distress caused by this harassment contributed
to Narendra Singh's decision to take his own life.
On this report, the police registered FIR 184/2020. After
investigation, the police filed charge-sheet against the present
petitioner before the competent court and after arguments on
charge, charges were framed against the petitioner for aforesaid
offence. Hence, this revision petition.
Counsel for the petitioner asserts that there is a conspicuous
absence of evidence implicating the petitioner in the abetment of
suicide, and there has been no recovery of a suicide note that
would establish a connection between the petitioner and the
alleged offence. The counsel points out that statements of
witnesses--namely Sarabjeet, Rajyavardhan Singh, Kailash
Prajapat, Lokendra Singh, Urmit Sharma, Manish Sankhala, and
Yash Kumar--have been recorded by the police in accordance with
Section 161 of Cr.P.C. These witnesses have unequivocally testified
that they neither witnessed the deceased committing suicide nor
observed any individual in proximity to the scene of the incident.
Moreover, they have explicitly stated that there is no involvement
of the petitioner or the co-accused in the circumstances
surrounding the deceased's suicide. Consequently, it is contended
that there exists no evidence whatsoever against the petitioner for
the alleged abetment of suicide, thereby rendering the charges
(Downloaded on 25/04/2025 at 11:53:39 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:19948] (3 of 17) [CRLR-1300/2023]
under Sections 306, 500, 501, and 504 of the Indian Penal Code
(IPC) unfounded. In support of these assertions, learned counsel
for the petitioner cites the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Shabbir Hussain vs. State of M.P. (Special Leave to
Appeal (Crl.) No. 7284/2017) dated 26.07.2021 and case of State
of West Bengal vs. Indrajit Kundu and others, reported in (2019)
10 SCC 188.
Mr. BS Charan, Adv. informed this Court that respondent
No.2 passed away and earlier he was appearing on his behalf.
Per contra, learned AAG Public Prosecutor and Mr. BS Deora,
counsel for respondent argued that the trial court after considering
the entire evidence as well as statements of witnesses rightly
framed charges against the petitioner. Therefore, the order
impugned does not call for any interference.
I have heard rival contention of the parties and carefully
considered the material available on record.
In order to appreciate the controversy, it would be apt to
refer to Section 306 of I.P.C. which reads as under:
"306. Abetment of suicide-If any person commits
suicide, whoever abets the commission of such
suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to ten years,
and shall alsobe liable to fine."
For commission of offence punishable under Section 306 IPC,
abetment is the necessary thing, which has been defined in
Section 107 IPC. Section 107 IPC, reads as under:--
"107. Abetment of a thing--A person abets the
doing of a thing, who-
First.-Instigates any person to do that thing; or
(Downloaded on 25/04/2025 at 11:53:39 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:19948] (4 of 17) [CRLR-1300/2023]
Secondly.-Engages with one or more other person or
persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing,
if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance
of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that
thing; or
Thirdly.-Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal
omission, the doing of that thing.
Explanation 1.--A person who, by wilful
misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a
material fact which he is bound to disclose,
voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause
or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate
the doing of that thing.
Explanation 2.--Whoever, either prior to or at the
time of the commission of an act, does anything in
order to facilitate the commission of that act, and
thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to
aid the doing of that act."
When Section 306 IPC is read with Section 107 IPC, it is
clear that there must be: (i) direct or indirect instigation; (ii) in
close proximity to the commission of suicide; along with (iii) clear
mens rea to abet the commission of suicide.
The core element of Section 306 of IPC is the intentional
abetment of suicide. Thus, for framing a charge for the offence
under section 306 IPC, the learned court below is to consider
whether the abettor intentionally instigated or aided the
commission of the suicide. Mere allegations of harassment do not
suffice to establish abetment.
The ingredients of Section 306 Indian Penal Code have been
extensively laid out in M. Arjunan v. State, represented by its
Inspector of Police reported in (2019) 3 SCC 315 which reads
as under:
"The act of the Accused, however, insulting the
deceased by using abusive language will not, by itself,
(Downloaded on 25/04/2025 at 11:53:39 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:19948] (5 of 17) [CRLR-1300/2023]
constitute the abetment of suicide. There should be
evidence capable of suggesting that the Accused
intended by such act to instigate the deceased to
commit suicide. Unless the ingredients of
instigation/abetment to commit suicide are satisfied,
Accused cannot be convicted Under Section 306
Indian Penal Code."
A plethora of Apex Court decisions have crystallized the law
of abetment. Abetment involves the mental process of instigating
or intentionally aiding another person to do a particular thing. To
bring a charge under Section 306 of the IPC, the act of abetment
would require the positive act of instigation or intentionally aiding.
Such instigation or incitement should reveal a clear mens-rea to
abet the commission of suicide and should put the victim in such a
position he/she would have no other option but to commit suicide.
In the present case, it is noteworthy that no suicide note was
discovered in proximity to the deceased, which significantly
complicates the task of determining the motive behind the
individual's tragic decision to take his own life. The assertion of
harassment and torture made by the complainant against the
petitioner, while serious, does not suffice to establish culpability
under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, which pertains to
abetment of suicide. To elaborate, the legal framework requires a
direct and demonstrable link between the actions or omissions of
the accused and the victim's decision to commit suicide. Without
concrete evidence substantiating the claims of harassment--such
as documented instances of alleged abuse or coercive behavior--
the mere allegations cannot meet the threshold of proof necessary
for framing charges under section 306 of I.P.C. In the absence of
(Downloaded on 25/04/2025 at 11:53:39 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:19948] (6 of 17) [CRLR-1300/2023]
substantial evidence directly correlating the petitioner's conduct
with the deceased's suicide, the allegations alone fall short of
satisfying the legal criteria for establishing abetment under section
306 of I.P.C. Thus, it raises serious questions regarding the
validity of the allegations and their ability to substantiate an
offence under Indian law.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra
v.State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) reported in (2009) 16 SCC
605 had an occasion to deal with the aspect of abetment. In the
said case, this Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that there should
be an intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act
by the accused. Besides, the judgment also observed that each
person's suicidability pattern is different from the other and each
person has his own idea of self-esteem and self-respect.
The scope and ambit of Section 107 of IPC and its co-relation
with Section 306 of IPC has been discussed repeatedly by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court and Co-ordinate Bench of different High
Courts. In case of S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and
another reported in (2010) 12 SCC 190, Hon'ble Supreme Court
reiterated the ingredients of offence of Section 306 IPC and
observed asunder :-
"25. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating
a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a
thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused
to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction
cannot be sustained. The intention of the legislature
and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court is clear
that in order to convict a person under Section 306
IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the
offence. It also requires an active act or direct act
(Downloaded on 25/04/2025 at 11:53:39 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:19948] (7 of 17) [CRLR-1300/2023]
which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no
option and that act must have been intended to push
the deceased into such a position that he committed
suicide."
The legal position as regards Sections 306 IPC which is long
settled was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Randhir Singh v. State of Punjab Reported in 1 (2004) 13
SCC 129 as follows in paras 12 and 13:
"12. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating
a person or intentionally aiding that person in doing a
thing. In cases of conspiracy also it would involve that
mental process of entering into conspiracy for the doing
of that thing. More active role which can be described as
instigating or aiding the doing of a thing is required
before a person can be said to be abetting the
commission of offence under Section 306 IPC.
13. In State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal this Court has
observed that the courts 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 transpires 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."
(Downloaded on 25/04/2025 at 11:53:39 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:19948] (8 of 17) [CRLR-1300/2023]
Further in the case of Kishori Lal v. State of M.P.,
Reported in 2 (2007) 10 SCC 797, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
gave a clear exposition of Section 107 IPC when it observed as
follows in para 6:
"6. Section 107 IPC defines abetment of a thing. The
offence of abetment is a separate and distinct offence
provided in IPC. A person, abets the doing of a thing
when (1) he instigates any person to do that thing; or
(2) engages with one or more other persons in any
conspiracy for the doing of that thing; or (3)
intentionally aids, by act or illegal omission, the doing of
that thing. These things are essential to complete
abetment as a crime. The word "instigate" literally
means to provoke, incite, urge on or bring about by
persuasion to do any thing. The abetment may be by
instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid, as provided in
the three clauses of Section 107. Section 109 provides
that if the act abetted is committed in consequence of
abetment and there is no provision for the punishment
of such abetment, then the offender is to be punished
with the punishment provided for the original offence.
"Abetted" in Section 109 means the specific offence
abetted. Therefore, the offence for the abetment of
which a person is charged with the abetment is normally
linked with the proved offence."
In the case of Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu vs. State of West
Bengal Reported in 2009 7 Supreme 289, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court observed that:-
"15. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view
that before holding an accused guilty of an offence
under Section 306 IPC, the Court must scrupulously
examine the facts and circumstances of the case and
(Downloaded on 25/04/2025 at 11:53:39 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:19948] (9 of 17) [CRLR-1300/2023]
also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to
find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out
to the victim had left the victim with no other
alternative but to put an end to her life. It is also to be
borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of
suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of
incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the
allegation of harassment without their being any
positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on
the part of the accused which led or compelled the
person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of
Section 306 IPC is not sustainable.
16. In order to bring a case within the purview of
Section 306 of IPC there must be a case of suicide and
in the commission of the said offence, the person who
is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must
have played an active role by an act of instigation or by
doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide.
Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged
with the said offence must be proved and established
by the prosecution before he could be convicted under
Section 306 IPC.
17. The expression 'abetment' has been defined under
Section 107 IPC which we have already extracted
above. A person is said to abet the commission of
suicide when a person instigates any person to do that
thing as stated in clause firstly or to do anything as
stated in clauses secondly or thirdly of Section 107 IPC.
Section 109 IPC provides that if the act abetted is
committed pursuant to and in consequence of
abetment then the offender is to be punished with the
punishment provided for the original offence.
18. Learned counsel for the respondent-State,
however, clearly stated before us that it would be a
(Downloaded on 25/04/2025 at 11:53:39 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:19948] (10 of 17) [CRLR-1300/2023]
case where clause thirdly' of Section 107 IPC only
would be attracted. According to him, a case of
abetment of suicide is made out as provided for under
Section 107 IPC."
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mariano Anto Bruno and
Ors. vs. The Inspector of Police reported in AIR 2022 SC
4994 observed as under :-
"This Court has time and again reiterated that before
convicting an Accused Under Section 306 Indian Penal
Code, the Court must scrupulously examine the facts
and circumstances of the case and also assess the
evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether
cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had
left the victim with no other alternative but to put an
end to her life. It is also to be borne in mind that in
cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be
proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the
commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of
harassment without their being any positive action
proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the
Accused which led or compelled the person to commit
suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 Indian
Penal Code is not sustainable."
Hon'ble Apex Court in another case of Mohit Singhal Vs.
State of Uttarakhand (Criminal Appeal No. 3578/2023) dated
01.12.2023 has observed as under :-
"9. In the facts of the case, secondly and thirdly in
Section 107, will have no application. Hence, the
question is whether the appellants instigated the
deceased to commit suicide. To attract the first clause,
there must be instigation in some form on the part of
the accused to cause the deceased to commit suicide.
Hence, the accused must have mens rea to instigate
the deceased to commit suicide. The act of instigation
must be of such intensity that it is intended to push the
deceased to such a position under which he or she has
no choice but to commit suicide. Such instigation must
be in close proximity to the act of committing suicide."
(Downloaded on 25/04/2025 at 11:53:39 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:19948] (11 of 17) [CRLR-1300/2023]
In the case of Prakash and Others v. The State of
Maharashtra and Another reported in 2024 INSC 1020 The
Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-
"13. Section 306 of the IPC has two basic ingredients-
first, an act of suicide by one person and second, the
abetment to the said act by another person(s). In order
to sustain a charge under Section 306 of the IPC, it must
necessarily be proved that the accused person has
contributed to the suicide by the deceased by some
direct or indirect act. To prove such contribution or
involvement, one of the three conditions outlined in
Section 107 of the IPC has to be satisfied.
14. Section 306 read with Section 107 of IPC, has been
interpreted, time and again, and its principles are well
established. To attract the offence of abetment to
suicide, it is important to establish proof of direct or
indirect acts of instigation or incitement of suicide by
the accused, which must be in close proximity to the
commission of suicide by the deceased. Such instigation
or incitement should reveal a clear mens rea to abet the
commission of suicide and should put the victim in such
a position that he/she would have no other option but to
commit suicide.
...
20. It could thus be seen that this Court observed that
instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or
encourage to do “an act”. It has been held that in order
to satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not
necessary that actual words must be used to that effect
or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and
specifically be suggestive of the consequence, however,
a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must
be capable of being spelt out. Applying the law to the
(Downloaded on 25/04/2025 at 11:53:39 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:19948] (12 of 17) [CRLR-1300/2023]
facts of the case, this Court went on to hold that a word
uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending
the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be
instigation.
…
22. It could thus be seen that this Court observed that
in cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be a
proof of direct or indirect act(s) of incitement to the
commission of suicide. It has been held that since the
cause of suicide particularly in the context of the offence
of abetment of suicide involves multifaceted and
complex attributes of human behaviour, the court would
be looking for cogent and convincing proof of the act(s)
of incitement to the commission of suicide. This Court
further observed that a mere allegation of harassment
of the deceased by another person would not suffice
unless there is such action on the part of the accused
which compels the person to commit suicide. This Court
also emphasised that such an offending action ought to
be proximate to the time of occurrence. It was further
clarified that the question of mens rea on the part of the
accused in such cases would be examined with
reference to the actual acts and deeds of the accused. It
was further held that if the acts and deeds are only of
such nature where the accused intended nothing more
than harassment or a snap-show of anger, a particular
case may fall short of the offence of abetment of
suicide, however, if the accused kept on irritating or
annoying the deceased by words or deeds until the
deceased reacted or was provoked, a particular case
may be that of abetment of suicide. This Court held that
owing to the fact that the human mind could be affected
and could react in myriad ways and that similar actions
are dealt with differently by different persons, each case
is required to be dealt with its own facts and
(Downloaded on 25/04/2025 at 11:53:39 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:19948] (13 of 17) [CRLR-1300/2023]
circumstances.
…
26. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that
instigation or incitement on the part of the accused person
is the gravamen of the offence of abetment to suicide.
However, it has been clarified on many occasions that in
order to link the act of instigation to the act of suicide, the
two occurrences must be in close proximity to each other
so as to form a nexus or a chain, with the act of suicide
by the deceased being a direct result of the act of
instigation by the accused person.
27. This Court in the case of Mohit Singhal (supra)
reiterated that the act of instigation must be of such
intensity and in such close proximity that it intends to
push the deceased to such a position under which the
person has no choice but to commit suicide. This Court
held that the incident which had allegedly driven the
deceased to commit suicide had occurred two weeks prior
and even the suicide note had been written three days
prior to the date on which the deceased committed suicide
and further, there was no allegation that any act had been
done by the accused-appellant therein in close proximity
to the date of suicide. This Court observed as follows:
“11.In the present case, taking the complaint of the
third respondent and the contents of the suicide note as
correct, it is impossible to conclude that the appellants
instigated the deceased to commit suicide by
demanding the payment of the amount borrowed by the
third respondent from her husband by using abusive
language and by assaulting him by a belt for that
purpose. The said incident allegedly happened more
than two weeks before the date of suicide. There is no
allegation that any act was done by the appellants in
close proximity to the date of suicide. By no stretch of(Downloaded on 25/04/2025 at 11:53:39 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:19948] (14 of 17) [CRLR-1300/2023]imagination, the alleged acts of the appellants can
amount to instigation to commit suicide. The deceased
has blamed the third respondent for landing in trouble
due to her bad habits.
12. Therefore, in our considered view, the offence
punishable under Section 306IPC was not made out
against the appellants. Therefore, the continuation of
their prosecution will be nothing but an abuse of the
process of law.”
(emphasis supplied)
28. This Court in the case of Naresh Kumar v. State of
Haryana, observed as follows:-
“20. This Court in Mariano Anto Bruno v. State [Mariano
Anto Bruno v. State, (2023) 15 SCC 560 : 2022 SCC
OnLine SC 1387] , after referring to the abovereferred
decisions rendered in context of culpability under
Section 306IPC observed as under : (SCC para 45)“45. … It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of
alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of
direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission
of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment
without there being any positive action proximate to
the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which
led or compelled the person to commit suicide,
conviction in terms of Section 306IPC is not
sustainable.”
Recently, in the case Lamxi Das vs The State of West
Bengal & Ors. Reported in 2025 INSC 86 the Hon’ble Apex
Court has observed that:-
“14. It is discerned from the record that the Appellant
along with her family did not attempt to put any pressure
on the deceased to end the relationship between her and(Downloaded on 25/04/2025 at 11:53:39 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:19948] (15 of 17) [CRLR-1300/2023]Babu Das. In fact, it was the deceased’s family that was
unhappy with the relationship. Even if the Appellant
expressed her disapproval towards the marriage of Babu
Das and the deceased, it does not rise to the level of
direct or indirect instigation of abetting suicide. Further, a
remark such as asking the deceased to not be alive if she
cannot live without marrying her lover will also not gain
the status of abetment. There needs to be a positive act
that creates an environment where the deceased is
pushed to an edge in order to sustain the charge of
Section 306 IPC.”
Upon reviewing the aforementioned judicial pronouncements,
this Court finds itself unable to concur with the trial Court’s
assessment. Even if all the evidence on record, including the
charge-sheet and witness statements, is presumed to be accurate,
there is no substantive evidence against the petitioner for attempt
to abet the complainant to commit suicide. No allegation has been
made against the accused that would suggest that the
complainant was left with no alternative but to attempt suicide.
The prosecution is required to demonstrate a clear motive for the
accused to abet the suicide. In the absence of any proof indicating
the active involvement or role of accused in the events leading to
the attempt, it would be unjust to proceed with the charge. Acts
such as threats or harassment, without evidence of direct
participation in the suicide, cannot be deemed sufficient to
establish abetment.
So far as the other offences under Sections 500, 501, & 504
IPC are concerned, the evidence presented indicates that the
(Downloaded on 25/04/2025 at 11:53:39 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:19948] (16 of 17) [CRLR-1300/2023]
petitioner did not transmit any derogatory messages via social
media pertaining to the deceased. This finding is pivotal, as
Section 500 IPC addresses the offence of defamation, requiring
the demonstration of false statements that harm an individual’s
reputation. Similarly, Section 501 IPC pertains to the publication
of such defamatory content, while Section 504 IPC addresses
intentional insult with the intent to provoke a breach of the peace.
Absent any substantiation of the petitioner’s involvement in
disseminating derogatory or insulting communications regarding
the deceased, the foundation for these allegations is significantly
weakened. Given that no concrete evidence has been provided to
implicate the petitioner in any form of defamatory conduct, the
claims under these sections lack the requisite legal basis.
Therefore, the absence of any insulting correspondence
undermines the validity of the charges and raises substantial
doubts about the propriety of pursuing legal action based on these
allegations. This reinforces the principle that accusations must be
supported by clear and compelling evidence to warrant legal
consequences.
In view of above, this Court is of the opinion that trial court
has committed error in framing charge for offence under Sections
306, 500, 501, & 504 IPC against the petitioner.
Accordingly, the revision petition is hereby allowed and the
impugned order dated 28.06.2023 passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge No.4, Jodhpur Metro in Session Case No.129/2021
framing charge for offence under Sections 306, 500, 501, & 504
(Downloaded on 25/04/2025 at 11:53:39 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:19948] (17 of 17) [CRLR-1300/2023]
IPC is hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioner is discharged
from the said offences.
The stay petition also stands disposed of.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
53-MS/-
(Downloaded on 25/04/2025 at 11:53:39 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_2]
Source link