Madhya Pradesh High Court
Badriprasad Karoliya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 May, 2025
Author: Achal Kumar Paliwal
Bench: Achal Kumar Paliwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL
M.Cr.C. No.47011/2022
BADRI PRASAD KAROLIYA
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANR.
_______________________________________________________________
Appearance:
Shri Dr. Anuvad Shrivastava- Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajeev Pandey - P.L. appearing on behalf of respondent No.1/State.
Shri Pramendra Singh Thakur, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on - 03.04.2025
Pronounced on - 14.05.2025
This petition having been heard and reserved for orders, on this day, the Court
pronounced the following:-
ORDER
This M.Cr.C. has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
for quashing FIR No.105/2021 registered at P.S.-Sultaganj, District- Raisen under
Sections 306 & 34 of IPC and for quashing all the consequential proceedings arising
thereto.
2
2. Briefly, prosecution story is that father of the respondent No.2 committed
suicide by hanging on account of illicit relationship between his mother and present
petitioner and harassment of deceased by petitioner etc.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the instant case, marriage
of deceased with co-accused Reena was solemnized in the year, 1992 and they have
major children. Deceased has committed suicide after 29 years of marriage and
deceased did not make any complaint during his lifetime to the effect that his wife is
having illicit relationship with the petitioner. Only in the suicide note, it has been
mentioned that his wife is having illicit relationship with the petitioner. It is also urged
that illicit relationship in itself would not amount to abetment because in such cases,
there is no mensrea on the part of the petitioner. It is also urged that in the absence of
any mensrea on the part of the petitioner, offence under Section 107 of IPC would not
be made out. With respect to above submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has
relied upon Shyambai & Ors Vs. State of M.P., ILR (2015) MP 2244. It is also
urged that subsequent conduct of the accused is also relevant in the instant case.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that if co-accused Reena
was having illicit relationship, then, after deceased committed suicide, co-accused
Reena might have not committed suicide. With respect to above, learned counsel for the
petitioner has relied upon State of Punjab Vs. Kamljit Kaur Alias Bholi and Anr,
208 Cr.L.J. 2104. Further, it is also urged that pronouncement relied upon by the
3
respondent/objector i.e. Dammu Sreenu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2009) 14
SCC 249 is based on rule of proximity. In the instant case, this is not even prima-facie,
established. Present case is covered under the point no. 3 & 4 of State of Haryana Vs.
Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors, 1992 AIR 604. Further, it is also urged that at the most,
offence under Section 497 of IPC would be made out but Hon’ble Apex Court in
Joseph Shine Vs. Union of India, (2019) 3 SCC 39 had declared aforesaid section as
unconstitutional. Therefore, adulterous conduct of wife is not an offence under the law.
Further, after relying upon State of Punjab Vs. Kamljit Kaur Alias Bholi and Anr,
208 Cr.L.J. 2104 (paras 4, 5 and 7), it has been urged that bad character of wife would
not amount to adultery. In view of aforesaid, it is urged that even prima-facie, no
offence under Section 306 of IPC is made out. Therefore, on above grounds, it has been
prayed that the petition filed by the petitioner be allowed and FIR No.105/2021
registered at P.S.-Sultanganj, District- Raisen under Sections 306/34 of IPC and all the
consequential proceedings arising thereto be quashed.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2/objector submits that from
statements of Manoj and Pooja (son and daughter of deceased) as well as Sukhdev
recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., evidently, wife of deceased was having illicit
relationship with the present applicant. Thus, there is specific allegation in the
statement of aforesaid witnesses and there is direct evidence against the present
petitioner. Prima-facie, ingredients constituting offence under Section 306 of IPC are
4
made out. Further, whether there is proximity in time or not can only be established
during trial. Further, question of mensrea would also be determined only after evidence
has been recorded. With respect to above submissions, learned counsel for the
respondent/objector has relied upon para 15 to 2 of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of Dammu Sreenu (supra). Therefore, no case for quashment of FIR
and all consequential proceedings arising thereto is made out. Hence, petition filed by
the petitioner be dismissed.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1, after referring to documents
annexed with the charge-sheet, submits that in the instant case, no ground for
quashment is made out. Hence, petition filed by the petitioner be dismissed.
7. Heard. Perused record of the case.
Scope of exercise of powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.:-
8. As present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for
quashment, therefore before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to discuss the
scope/ambit of exercise of powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Recently Hon’ble Apex
Court in Mahendra K.C. Vs. State of Karnanata and another, (2022) 2 SCC 129,
has discussed the issue and has held as under:-
“19. The High Court has the power under Section 482 to issue such orders
as are necessary to prevent the abuse of legal process or otherwise, to
secure the ends of justice. The law on the exercise of power under Section
482 to quash an FIR is well settled. In State of Orissa v. Saroj Kumar
Sahoo, (2005) 13 SCC 540, a two judge Bench of this Court, observed that:
“8. […] While exercising powers under the section, the court
does not function as a court of appeal or revision. Inherent
5jurisdiction under the section though wide has to be exercised
sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such
exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the
section itself. It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real
and substantial justice for the administration of which alone
courts exist. Authority of the court exists for advancement of
justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as
to produce injustice, the court has power to prevent abuse. It
would be an abuse of process of the court to allow any action
which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice.
In exercise of the powers court would be justified to quash any
proceeding if it finds that initiation/continuance of it amounts to
abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings
would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is
disclosed by the report, the court may examine the question of
fact. When a report is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to
look into the materials to assess what the report has alleged and
whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are
accepted in toto.”
20. These principles emanate from the decisions of this Court in State of
Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 and State of M.P. v.
Surendra Kori (2012) 10 SCC 155. In Surendra Kori (supra), this Court
observed:
“14. The High Court in exercise of its powers under Section 482
CrPC does not function as a Court of Appeal or Revision. This
Court has, in several judgments, held that the inherent
jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, though wide, has to be
used sparingly, carefully and with caution. The High Court,
under Section 482 CrPC, should normally refrain from giving a
prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are
incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been
collected and produced before the Court and the issues
involved, whether factual or legal, are of wide magnitude and
cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient
material.”
21. In Bhajan Lal (supra), this Court laid down the principles for the
exercise of the jurisdiction by the High Court in exercise of its powers under
Section 482 of the CrPC to quash an FIR. Justice Ratnavel Pandian laid
down the limits on the exercise of the power under Section 482 CrPC for
quashing the FIR and observed:
“102. 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
6under 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 channelised and inflexible
guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of
myriad 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 FIR 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 FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable 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.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with
mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted
with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused
and with a view to spite him due to private and personal
grudge.”
The judgment in Bhajan Lal (supra) has been recently relied on by this
Court in State of Telangana v. Managipet (2019) 19 SCC 87.
7
22. Based on the above precedent, the High Court while exercising its
power under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash the FIR instituted against the
second respondent-accused should have applied the following two tests: (i)
whether the allegations made in the complaint, prima facie constitute an
offence; and (ii) whether the allegations are so improbable that a prudent
man would not arrive at the conclusion that there is sufficient ground to
proceed with the complaint……..
27 While adjudicating on an application under Section 482 CrPC, the
High Court in the present case travelled far away from the parameters for
the exercise of the jurisdiction. Essentially, the task before the High Court
was to determine whether 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 did or did not prima facie constitute an offence or
make out a case against the accused.”
Scope and ambit of Section 306 of IPC:-
9. Before proceeding further, it is imperative to briefly discuss the law on the
abetment of suicide to determine if a prima-facie case under Section 306 of IPC has
been made out against the petitioner/accused.
10. The offence of abetment of suicide is specified in Section 306 of IPC,
which is 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 also be liable to fine.”
11. Section 107 of the IPC defines the expression “abetment”:-
“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 lakes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in
order to the doing of that thing; or
8Thirdly.–Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the
doing of that thing.
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.”
12. Recently Hon’ble Apex Court in Mahendra K.C. (supra), after referring
to earlier pronouncements, after discussing the scope and ambit of provision of Section
306 of IPC, has held as under:-
“24 The essence of abetment lies in instigating a person to do a thing or the
intentional doing of that thing by an act or illegal omission. In Ramesh
Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618, a three-judge Bench of
this Court, speaking through Justice RC Lahoti (as the learned Chief Justice
then was), observed:
“20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or
encourage to do “an act”. 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.
Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be
capable of being spelt out. The present one is not a case where
the accused had by his acts or omission 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 an instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in
the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences
to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.”
25 A two judge Bench of this Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State
(Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2009) 16 SCC 605), speaking through Justice DK
Jain, observed:
“19. As observed in Ramesh Kumar [(2001) 9 SCC 618 , where
the accused by his acts or by a continued course of conduct
creates such circumstances that the deceased was left with no
other option except to commit suicide, an “instigation” may be
inferred. In other words, in order to prove that the accused
9abetted commission of suicide by a person, it has to be
established that:
(i) the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by
words, deeds or wilful omission or conduct which may even be a
wilful silence until the deceased reacted or pushed or forced the
deceased by his deeds, words or wilful omission or conduct to
make the deceased move forward more quickly in a forward
direction; and
(ii) that the accused had the intention to provoke, urge or
encourage the deceased to commit suicide while acting in the
manner noted above. Undoubtedly, presence of mens rea is the
necessary concomitant of instigation.
20. In the background of this legal position, we may advert to
the case at hand. The question as to what is the cause of a
suicide has no easy answers because suicidal ideation and
behaviours in human beings are complex and multifaceted.
Different individuals in the same situation react and behave
differently because of the personal meaning they add to each
event, thus accounting for individual vulnerability to suicide.
Each individual’s suicidability pattern depends on his inner
subjective experience of mental pain, fear and loss of self-
respect. Each of these factors are crucial and exacerbating
contributor to an individual’s vulnerability to end his own life,
which may either be an attempt for self-protection or an
escapism from intolerable self.”
26. This has been reiterated in the decision in Amalendu Pal @
Jhantu v. State of West Bengal (2010) 1 SCC 707 , where it has been
observed:
“12. […] 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 306 IPC is not sustainable.”
(See also in this context the judgments in Praveen Pradhan v. State of
Uttaranchal (2012) 9 SCC 734, Vaijnath Kondiba Khandke v. State of
Maharashtra (2018) 7 SCC 781, M. Arjunan v. The State (Represented By
Its Inspector of Police) (2019) 3 SCC 315, Ude Singh v. State of Haryana
(2019) 17 SCC 301, Rajesh @ Sarkari v. The State of Haryana (2020) 15
SCC 359 and Gurcharan Singh v. The State of Punjab (2020) 10 SCC
200. These decisions have been recently referred to in the judgment of this
10
Court in Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v. State of Maharashtra (2021) 2
SCC 427).”
13. Hon’ble Apex Court in Praveen Pradhan Vs. State of Uttaranchal and
another, (2012) 9 SCC 734 has laid down the law on the subject as under:-
“18. In fact, from the above discussion it is apparent that instigation
has to be gathered from the circumstances of a particular case. No straight-
jacket formula can be laid down to find out as to whether in a particular
case there has been instigation which force the person to commit suicide. In
a particular case, there may not be direct evidence in regard to instigation
which may have direct nexus to suicide. Therefore, in such a case, an
inference has to be drawn from the circumstances and it is to be determined
whether circumstances had been such which in fact had created the
situation that a person felt totally frustrated and committed suicide. More
so, while dealing with an application for quashing of the proceedings, a
court cannot form a firm opinion, rather a tentative view that would evoke
the presumption referred to under Section 228 Cr.P.C.”
14. Hon’ble Apex Court in Ude Singh and others Vs. State of Haryana,
(2019) 17 SCC 301 has also discussed the provision of Section 306 of IPC and has held
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 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
11reiterated by this Court in the decisions above-referred, 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
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 306 IPC. 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.”
Factual analysis of the case:-
15. Now the instant case would be considered in the light of the aforesaid
settled legal propositions with respect to scope and ambit of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and
Section 306 of IPC.
16. For deciding the case on merits, it would be appropriate to refer and
reproduce statement of Manoj, son of deceased recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.,
which is as follows:-
“……us crk;k mDr irs ij jgrk gWawA eSa iafMrkbZ djrk gWaw eS a vdsyk HkkbZ
rFkk ,d cgu gS eSa d{kk 10oh i<+us ds ckn laLd`r dh i<+kbZ ds ckn iafMrkbZ
djus yxk rFkk esjh cgu iwtk efgykvksa ds lewg cukus dk dke djrh gS esjs
firk larks”k iafMrkbZ djrs FksA esjh ekW a jhuk ckbZ o cM+s ikik cnzh izlkn ds dqN
le; ls voS/k laca/k gksus dh tkudkjh eq>s yxh Fkh rc eSaus cM+s ikik cnzh izlkn
o eEeh dks le>kus dk dkQh iz;kl fd;k ijUrq esjh eEeh o cM+s ikik cnzh
12izlkn ugha ekurs Fks esjs firk larks”k cM+s ikik cnzh izlkn dks eEeh dks ckrphr
djus o vkus tkus dk euk djrs Fks rks esjh eEeh dks cnzh izlkn cM+s ikik dgrs
Fks fd rqe vyx gks tkvks tc ge yksx o ikik larks”k eEeh ls dgrs Fks fd rqe
cM+s ikik ds ikl D;ksa tkrh gks rks eEeh jhuk ckbZ o cM+s ikik cnzh izlkn esjs
ikik larks”k ls dg nsrs Fks fd rqe rks ej tkvks ;k dgha pys tkvks esjs ikik
larks”k eq>ls Hkh dgrs Fks fd eSa dSls ftUnk jgWwa rqEgkjh eEeh esjs lkeus gh cnzh
izlkn ls xyr laca/k cukrh gSA esjs cM+s ikik cnzh o ekWa jhuk ckbZ us esjs firk
larks”k dks bruk vR;f/kd izrkfM+r fd;k fd mUgs a ejus dks etcwj gksuk iM+k
vkSj ?kVuk fnukad 15&16@09@21 dh njfe;knh jkr Qkalh yxkdj vkRegR;k
djuk iM+hA esjh eEeh jhuk o cnzh cM+s ikik ges’kk djhcu 03 ekg igys ds dkQh
VkWpZj dj jgs Fks gj le; eEeh o cnzh izlkn esjs ikik larks”k ls dgrs Fks fd ;k
rks rqe ej tkuk ;k ?kj ls pys tkukA esjs ikik larks”k us eEeh jhuk o cnzh
izlkn dh izrkM+uk ls rax vkdj Qkalh yxkbZ ,oa ?kVuk dh jkf= ls gh eEeh jhuk
dgha Hkkx xbZ gSA ;gh esjk c;ku gSA ”
17. Statement of Pooja, daughter of deceased recorded under Section 161 of
Cr.P.C., is also almost identical. Further, there is also a suicide note of the deceased on
record, which is as follows:-
“ft;s rks dSls ft;s] lq[knso us tehu NqM+k yh cnzh ls yqxkbZ NqM+k yh vc dSls
ft;s ”
18. Thus, in the instant case, prima-facie, it is an admitted fact that there were
illicit relation between wife of deceased as well as present applicant. At the time of
incident, petitioner was aged 59 years and deceased was aged 50 years. Close family
relation between deceased, deceased’s wife and petitioner is also evident from
statements of Manoj and Pooja. It is also an admitted fact that on the date of incident,
wife of deceased had also left the house and her body was found in a well.
19. It is also evident from record that parties are resident of a village and it is
also a matter of common knowledge that in a village generally parties know each other
13
personally.
20. Further, there is no gainsaying that honour/self-respect/self-esteem are
most valuable treasure of a human being. If a person constantly feels humiliated/has a
constant feeling of being insulted/humiliated in the eyes of his children/fellow
villagemen, then, the same is sufficient to drive a person to commit suicide. The words
used in the suicide note as well as statements of children of the deceased recorded under
Section 161 of Cr.P.C. clearly show the pain and agony and helplessness of the
deceased. Further, where a person aged 59 years would go after leaving the house and
how will he sustain himself/how he will earn livelihood.
21. With respect to aforesaid, observations made by Hon’ble Apex Court in
para 16.1 in Ude Singh (supra) are crucial. Therein Hon’ble Apex Court has observed
that 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.
22. Similarly, Hon’ble Apex Court in Dammu Sreenu (supra) in para 18 has
also observed as under:-
“18. The facts which are disclosed from the evidence on record
clearly establish that Accused No. 1 had illicit relationship with Accused
No. 2 who is the wife of the deceased. It is also not in dispute that Accused
No. 1 was visiting the house of the deceased to meet Accused No. 2 and that
he even went to the house of deceased when he came to know that the wife
of the deceased was sent with her father for counseling and advise. He
loudly stated that he would continue to have relationship with Accused No.
2 and would come to her house so long she does not object to the same. He
also took her away from the house of PW-5, her brother and kept her with
him for 4 days. Immediately after the said incident the deceased committed
14the suicide. Therefore, there is definitely a proximity and nexus between
the conduct and behaviour of Accused No. 1 and Accused No. 2 with that of
the suicide committed by the deceased.”
23. Hence, if aforesaid observations of Hon’ble Apex Court in Ude Singh
(supra) and Dammu Sreenu (supra) are examined in the light of facts of the case, as
discussed and mentioned in preceding paras, prima-facie, it can be said that petitioner
abetted the deceased to commit suicide.
24. Hence, in view of discussion in the foregoing paras, in the considered
opinion of this Court, on account of factual difference, the principles laid down in
Kamaljit Kaur (supra), Shyambai (supra) and Joseph Shine (supra) do not apply to
the facts of present case.
25. Resultantly, in view of discussion in foregoing paras, in the considered
opinion of this Court, the allegations as made out from the evidence/documents
available in the charge sheet, clearly prima-facie constitute an offence under Section
306 of IPC and allegations against present petitioner cannot be said to be so improbable
that a prudent man would not arrive at the conclusion that there is sufficient ground to
proceed further against the petitioner. Hence, in the instant case, no case for quashment
of the proceedings against petitioner is made out. Therefore, present petition filed by
the petitioner is dismissed.
26. However, it is made clear that none of the observations made hereinabove
would have adverse affect on the rights of the petitioner in any of the proceedings
during trial and learned trial Court shall decide the case on merits without being
15
affected in any manner whatsoever by observations made hereinabove, because the
same have been made only to decide the instant case.
27. Accordingly, petitions stands disposed off.
(ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL)
JUDGE
MANZOOR AHMED
2025.05.14 17:51:03 +05’30’
Hashmi/ansari
[ad_1]
Source link