Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kaushalya Bai vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 June, 2025
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
1
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:15384
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR
ON THE 25TH JUNE, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 4158 OF 2025
KAUSHALYA BAI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Vivek Singh senior advocate with Shri Shivendra Singh Rawat,
advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Rajesh Joshi Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
This petition under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by petitioners for quashing of FIR pertaining
to Crime No. 493 of 2023 registered at Police Station Kurawar (Kotara)
District Rajgadh dated 15.10.2023 for offence punishable under Sections
306, 498-A, 34 of IPC alongwith all subsequent proceedings.
2/ The exposition of facts, giving rise to present petition, is as under:
A. Sevaram son of Bhanwarlal Meena aged around 78 years resident of
village Nipaniyachetan informed P.S. Kurawar that on 21.8.2023 around
3:00 in the afternoon, his daughter-in-law Mamtabai hanged herself with
the help of saari in her room tied with the ceiling fan. Mamtabai had died.
P.S. Kurawar registered unnatural death intimation No. 37/2023. The dead-
body of Mamtabai was forwarded for postmortem examination. The panel
2NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:15384
of medical experts opined that Mamtabai had died due to asphyxia which
primarly appears to be mechanical as indicated by the ligature mark. The
probability of strangulation cannot be ruled out. The viscera was preserved
for toxicology examination. The chemical analysis report of viscera
reported no poisonous substance in viscera. The underwear of deceased
was preserved and forwarded for chemical analysis. Traces of spermatozoa
were found on the underwear, therefore, suspecting sexual assault, the
underwear and blood samples of Bhagwat (brother-in-law), Sevaram
(father-in-law), Rajkumar (brother-in-law) and Manoj (brother-in-law),
relatives of deceased were forwarded for DNA profiling and examination.
The Scientific Officer of Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Bhopal
reported that DNA profile extracted from source material of deceased i.e.
underwear did not match with the DNA profile extracted from blood
samples of Sevaram, Bhagwat, Rajkumar and Manoj Meena. The panel of
medical experts was again approached for specific opinion about cause of
death of Mamtabai. The panel of medical experts vide letter dated 2.3.2024
opined that Mamtabai had died due to asphyxia caused by mechanical
obstruction. The nature of death of Mamtabai is suicidal. There is no
indication in favour of strangulation except the transverse ligature mark.
The son and daughter of the deceased informed that Rajkumar had
assaulted the deceased one year before her death and other family members
used to quarrel with the deceased for not participating in domestic work.
Suresh (brother), Seema (sister), Manmohan (brother),
Ramswaroop(uncle), relatives of deceased from maternal side, stated that
Mamtabai was married to Ramniwas. Ramniwas had expired five years
ago due to cancer. After death of Ramniwas, his family members were
harassing Mamtabai over domestic issues. Bhagwat Prasad wanted to
3NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:15384
transfer the land of Mamtabai in favour of himself and family members.
Once Rajkumar had scuffled with Mamtabai in the month of March, 2020.
However, the matter was resolved amicably. They suspected that Bhagwat
Prasad, Sushila, Kaushalya, Rajdulari and Rajkumar might have killed
Mamtabai. On such allegations, P.S. Kurawar registered FIR at crime No.
493/2023 for offence punishable under Sections 306 and 498-A of IPC
against Bhagwat Prasad, Sushila, Kaushalya, Rajdulari and Rajkumar. The
statements of witness were recorded. On completion of investigation, final
report was submitted on 21.7.2024.
3 Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that trial has not
commenced.
4 The impugned FIR is assailed in the present petition on following
grounds:-
i) The registration of alleged offence against the petitioner is
contrary to law and facts on record.
ii) The offence punishable under Sections 306 and 498A of IPC is
not made out against the petitioners even if the entire prosecution story
is believed.
iii) There was no cruelty or abetment to suicide by the petitioners,
therefore, registration of FIR against the petitioners is bad in law.
It is requested that the impugned FIR registered at crime NO. 493/2023
at P.S. Kurawar be quashed.
5 Learned counsel for the petitioners, referring to the judgments in
cases of Chitresh Kumar Chopra Vs. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi)
reported in (2009) 16 SCC 605; S.S. Cheena Vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan
4
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:15384
reported in 2010(12) SCC 190; Gangula Mohan Reddy Vs. State of AP
reported in (2010) 1 SCC 750; M.Mohan Vs. State reported in AIR 2011
SC 1238 contended that ingredients to constitute abetment for suicide are
not made out from the material submitted alongwith the final report.
Learned counsel referred to the statements of witnesses recorded under
Sections 174 and 161 of Cr.P.C. contended that no incident in proximity
with the death of Mamtabai is reported by any of the prosecution witness.
The alleged scuffle of Rajkumar with Mamtaba relates to March 2020 i.e.
almost three years before her death. The alleged quarrel or scolding of
Mamtabai over domestic work does not amount to abetment to commit
suicide or cruelty. Therefore, the impugned FIR deserves to be quashed.
6 Learned counsel for the State informed that family members of the
deceased Mamtabai were informed regarding filing of present petition.
Learned counsel for the State further submitted that in view of the direct
allegations in the statements recorded under Sections 161 and 174 of
Cr.P.C., no case is made out for quashing of FIR. The petition is meritless.
7 Heard both the parties and perused the record.
8 The Supreme Court in case of State of Haryana vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal,
reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 after an elaborate consideration of the matter
and after referring to its various earlier decisions, has observed in para 108 as
under:-
”108. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the
Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a
series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article
226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted
and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of
illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the
process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not
be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelized
and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad
5NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:15384
kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint,
even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima
facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if
any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an
investigation by police officers under Section 156(1)of the Code except under an
order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the
evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any
offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but
constitute only a noncognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police
officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of
the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and
inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a
just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6)Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the
Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the
institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific
provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the
grievance of the aggrieved party.”
9 The prosecution is based on statements of family members of
deceased namely, Suresh (brother), Seema (sister), Manmohan (brother)
and Ramswaroop (uncle). They stated that the husband of deceased
Mamtabai, namely, Ramniwas expired five years ago due to cancer. After
death of Ramniwas, his family members were harassing Mamtabai over
domestic work.
10 Section 306 of IPC provides for punishment for abetment to commit
suicide. Section 107 of IPC defines abetment 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
(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
6
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:15384
(Thirdly)– Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
The explanation to Section 107 IPC which defines instigation provides, thus:-
Explanation 1.– A person who, by willful misrepresentation, or by willful
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.
11 In the case of Mohit Singhal v. State of Uttarakhand , (2024) 1
SCC 417, while interpreting aforesaid provision, the Hon’ble Apex Court
held as under :
10. In the facts of the case, Secondly and Thirdly in Section 107, will have no
application. Hence, the question is whether the petitioner 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.
12 In case of Gangula Mohan Reddy V/s. State of Andhra Pradesh
(2010) 1 SCC 750, the Apex Court opined as under :-
“17. 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 which led the
deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to
push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.”
13 In case of Ude Singh v. State of Haryana reported in (2019) 17
SCC 301, the Supreme Court held that to prove an offence under Section
306IPC, the intent or mental state to commit the specific crime must be
evident when assessing culpability. It was observed as under-
“16. 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 could hardly be
disputed that the question of cause of a suicide, particularly in the context of an
offence of abetment of suicide, remains a vexed one, involving multifaceted and
complex attributes of human behaviour and responses/reactions. In the case of
accusation for abetment of suicide, the court would be looking for cogent and
convincing proof of the act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide. In the
case of suicide, mere allegation of harassment of the deceased by another person
7NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:15384
would not suffice unless there be such action on the part of the accused which
compels the person to commit suicide; and such an offending action ought to be
proximate to the time of occurrence. Whether a person has abetted in the
commission of suicide by another or not, could only be gathered from the facts and
circumstances of each case.
16.1. For the purpose of finding out if a person has abetted commission of suicide
by another, the consideration would be if the accused is guilty of the act of
instigation of the act of suicide. As explained and reiterated by this Court in the
decisions abovereferred, instigation means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or
encourage to do an act. If the persons who committed suicide had been
hypersensitive and the action of the accused is otherwise not ordinarily expected to
induce a similarly circumstanced person to commit suicide, it may not be safe to
hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide. But, on the other hand, if the
accused by his acts and by his continuous course of conduct creates a situation
which leads the deceased perceiving no other option except to commit suicide, the
case may fall within the four corners of Section 306IPC. If the accused plays an
active role in tarnishing the self-esteem and self-respect of the victim, which
eventually draws the victim to commit suicide, the accused may be held guilty of
abetment of suicide. 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
and if the acts and deeds are only of such nature where the accused intended
nothing more than harassment or 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. Such being the
matter of delicate analysis of human behaviour, each case is required to be
examined on its own facts, while taking note of all the surrounding factors having
bearing on the actions and psyche of the accused and the deceased.”
14. In case of Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana, 2024
INSC 953, the Supreme Court held as under-
25. A mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out
of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active
involvement should be nipped in the bud. It is a well-recognised fact, borne out of
judicial experience, that there is often a tendency to implicate all the members of the
husband’s family when domestic disputes arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such
generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or
particularised allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. Courts must
exercise caution in such cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions and the legal
process and avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent family members. In the
present case, appellant Nos. 2 to 6, who are the members of the family of appellant
No. 1 have been living in different cities and have not resided in the matrimonial
house of appellant No. 1 and respondent No. 2 herein. Hence, they cannot be
dragged into criminal prosecution and the same would be an abuse of the process of
the law in the absence of specific allegations made against each of them.
28. The inclusion of Section 498A of the IPC by way of an amendment was intended
to curb cruelty inflicted on a woman by her husband and his family, ensuring swift
intervention by the State. However, in recent years, as there have been a notable rise
8
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:15384
in matrimonial disputes across the country, accompanied by growing discord and
tension within the institution of marriage, consequently, there has been a growing
tendency to misuse provisions like Section 498A of the IPC as a tool for unleashing
personal vendetta against the husband and his family by a wife. Making vague and
generalised allegations during matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinized, will lead to
the misuse of legal processes and an encouragement for use of arm twisting tactics
by a wife and/or her family. Sometimes, recourse is taken to invoke Section 498A of
the IPC against the husband and his family in order to seek compliance with the
unreasonable demands of a wife. Consequently, this Court has, time and again,
cautioned against prosecuting the husband and his family in the absence of a clear
prima facie case against them.
29. We are not, for a moment, stating that any woman who has suffered cruelty in
terms of what has been contemplated under Section 498A of the IPC should remain
silent and forbear herself from making a complaint or initiating any criminal
proceeding. That is not the intention of our aforesaid observations but we should not
encourage a case like as in the present one, where as a counterblast to the petition for
dissolution of marriage sought by the first appellant-husband of the second
respondent herein, a complaint under Section 498A of the IPC is lodged by the latter.
In fact, the insertion of the said provision is meant mainly for the protection of a
woman who is subjected to cruelty in the matrimonial home primarily due to an
unlawful demand for any property or valuable security in the form of dowry.
However, sometimes it is misused as in the present case.
30. In the above context, this Court in G.V. Rao vs. L.H.V. Prasad, (2000) 3 SCC 693
observed as follows:
“12. There has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. Marriage is
a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle
down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt
which often assume serious proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in
which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could
have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their
being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many other reasons which
need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the
parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by
mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and
years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their “young” days in chasing
their “cases” in different courts.”
31. Further, this Court in Preeti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 667 held
that the courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these
complaints and must take pragmatic realties into consideration while dealing with
matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment by the husband’s close relatives
who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place
where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The
allegations of the complainant are required to be scrutinized with great care and
circumspection.
15 The principle flowing from these judgments is that the overt act of
accused must be of such a nature that the victim had no option but to
9
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:15384
commit suicide. There should be specific allegation of the act or conduct
amounting to cruelty. As per the case of prosecution, petitioners instigated
Mamtabai to commit suicide. Instigation means “to goad, urge, provoke,
incite or encourage to do act”. There is no positive or direct allegation that
the petitioners intended death of Mamtabai or they had goaded, urged,
provoked, incited or encouraged Mamtabai to commit suicide.
16 As per prosecution, family members of deceased namely Suresh
(brother), Seema (sister), Manmohan (brother) and Ramswaroop (uncle)
made allegations against the petitioners for harassing Mamtabai over
domestic issues. But that nowhere establishes that she was asked,
provoked, goaded, instigated to commit suicide by the petitioners. The
intention of the accused to drive the deceased to commit suicide cannot be
inferred from the material on case diary. There is no live link between
alleged conduct of petitioners to Mamta’s death. The alleged conduct does
not fall within the ambit of “incitement” or “instigation”. In the case of
suicide, mere allegation of harassment of the deceased by the family
members would not suffice unless there be such an action on the part of the
accused which compels the person to commit suicide and such an
offending action ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence. (Sanju
@ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of M.P. reported in AIR 2002 SC 199 ;
Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu Vs. State of West Bengal, reported in (2010) 1
SCC 707 and Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs. State of Maharashtra
and Others reported in 2020 (SCC Online) SC 964 relied).
17 The allegations relating to harassment of Mamtabai over domestic
work are general and omnibus in nature, bereft of specific details and
particular incidents. The incident of scuffle with Mamtabai by Ramprasad
is also stale (almost three years before her death) and has no proximate or
10
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:15384
live link with her death. The willful conduct, on part of the accused, of
such a nature that is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide cannot be
inferred on such a vague allegation. In view of the above discussion, this
Court is of the considered opinion that the offences punishable under
Section 306, 498-A and Section 34 of IPC were not prima facie made out
against the petitioners/accused. The impugned FIR and the Final report
implicating the petitioners for offence punishable under Section 306, 498-
A and Section 34 of IPC was an abuse of process of law. The further
proceedings will be futile exercise and will cause severe prejudice to the
petitioners. Thus, interference in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under
Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is needed to
prevent the abuse of process of court.
18 Consequently, the impugned FIR bearing Crime No. 493 of 2023
registered at PS Kurawar, District Rajgadh for offence punishable under
Sections 306, 498-A and 34 of IPC and all consequential proceedings
against the petitioners are quashed.
The M.Cr.C. stands disposed off.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned Police Station for
information and compliance.
CC as per rules.
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
BDJ
Digitally signed by BHUNESHWAR DATT
BHUNESH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENTCH AT INDORE, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH BENTCH AT INDORE,
2.5.4.20=3fb5bcda9fd75d95d6c7cdcbd092ee5a74a9
4a5534aed3a66d9385cfcfc201e0,
WAR DATT
postalCode=452001, st=MADHYA PRADESH,
serialNumber=89FD75A8D0C99E05779A327974E46
BC85102826CE0604B211E4C91102B4D1269,
cn=BHUNESHWAR DATT
Date: 2025.06.25 19:56:32 +05’30’