Patna High Court
Madhu Kumari @ Dabli Kumari vs The State Of Bihar on 18 July, 2025
Author: Chandra Shekhar Jha
Bench: Chandra Shekhar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13588 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-257 Year-2019 Thana- TEGHRHA District- Begusarai
======================================================
Madhu Kumari @ Dabli Kumari, W/o Late Sudhanshu Kumar Singh @
Munna, D/o Vijay Kumar Singh @ Vijay Kumar, R/o Village- Daniyalpur,
P.S.- Teghra, Dist.- Begusarai.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Vijay Kumar Singh, S/o Devki Nandan Singh, R/o Village-Korjana, P.S.-
Cheriya Bariyarpur, Dist.- Begusarai.
... ... Opposite Parties
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. P.N. Shahi, Senior Advocate
Mr. Amit Anand, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Anil Kumar Singh No.1, APP
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Mritunjay Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 18-07-2025
Heard learned senior counsel appearing for the
petitioner, learned APP for the State and learned counsel
appearing for O.P. No.2.
2. The present application preferred u/s 482 of the
Criminal Procedure Code (in short 'CrPC') by the petitioner for
quashing of the order dated 11.11.2024 as passed by learned
Incharge Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai in G.R. No.2493
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13588 of 2025 dt.18-07-2025
2/11
of 2019 arising out of Teghra P.S. Case No.257 of 2019,
whereby the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate has taken
cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 306 of
the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') against the petitioner.
3. The case of prosecution is based upon the
written report of informant, namely, Vijay Kumar Singh (O.P.
No.2) addressed to the Officer-in-charge of Teghra Police
Station is that he had got his younger daughter Madhu
Kumari @ Dabli Kumari (petitioner) married to Sudhanshu
Kumar Singh on 20.04.2018. After the marriage, the
daughter of the informant (petitioner) went to her Sasural.
From that time itself, Madhu Kumari, wife of elder son of
Chandra Bhushan Singh @ Domi Singh namely, Deepak
Kumar, who was teacher in D.A.V. Public School, H.F.C.
Barauni used to mentally torture the daughter of the
informant (petitioner). She had not wanted that Sudhanshu
get married, as she wanted to inherit the entire property of
Domi Singh. She was trying to anyhow grab the property of
Sudhanshu Kumar Singh. The daughter of the informant used
to give information about all such happenings to her
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13588 of 2025 dt.18-07-2025
3/11
father/O.P. No.2. Subsequently, Sudhanshu took the
daughter of the informant (petitioner) to his work place at
Gujarat. After about one year, Sudhanshu Kumar Singh with
his family returned back to his village. When the second wife
of Deepak Singh, namely, Madhu Kumari realise that she was
not succeeding in her efforts to anyhow trap Sudhanshu
Kumar Singh, she administered poison mixed in juice to
Sudhanshu Kumar Singh on 04.07.2019. After administering
of poison, Sudhanshu was taken to Lifeline Hospital, Barauni
and the wife of Deepak Kumar Singh locked the door of her
room and fled away. After Sudhanshu was declared dead,
Phulwariya Police Station was informed whereafter, post-
mortem examination of the deceased was conducted on
05.07.2019
. The informant alleged that for inheriting the
whole property, the second wife of Deepak Singh namely,
Madhu Kumari had administered poison to his son-in-law
Sudhanshu. It was further alleged that she had earlier filed a
rape case against son of Sudhir Singh, brother of Chandra
Bhushan Singh @ Domi Singh. It was further alleged that
Chandra Bhushan Singh @ Domi Singh remained a silent
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13588 of 2025 dt.18-07-2025
4/11
spectator, as he was afraid of the second wife of Deepak
Singh. The informant further disclosed that the first wife of
Deepak Singh had also died in suspicious circumstances
whereafter case was filed against Chandra Bhushan Singh and
Deepak Singh and all such family dispute was the reason
behind the false implication of petitioner to grab properties of
her husband, who committed suicide.
4. On the basis of aforesaid written report of the
informant, Teghra P.S Case No.257 of 2019 dated
07.07.2019 under Sections 328, 327, 120-B and 302 of the
IPC was registered against petitioner, where after
investigation, police submitted charge-sheet u/s 306 of IPC.
5. It is submitted by Mr. P.N. Shahi, learned senior
counsel appearing for petitioner that from perusal of FIR, it
appears that the informant, who is father of O.P. No.2
projected himself as an eye-witness of the occurrence
narrating his statement in such a manner that the occurrence
is of murder. It is further submitted that after investigation,
the police authority submitted charge-sheet for the offences
punishable under Section 306 of the IPC against the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13588 of 2025 dt.18-07-2025
5/11
petitioner. It is pointed out that learned Jurisdictional
Magistrate through impugned order dated 11.11.2014
referring various paragraphs including para- 8 and 20 of the
case diary, took cognizance against the petitioner/accused for
the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC. In this
context, it is submitted that para 8 and 20 of the case diary
are nothing but the statement of father of the deceased, who
categorically stated in his statement recorded under Section
161 of the CrPC, in para-8 of the case diary that his deceased
son had consumed poison out of depression and the same fact
he provided to the investigating officer of the case in writing,
which is mentioned in para-20 of the case diary. It is
submitted that merely on the basis of the ground that cause
of death was due to “celphos”, it cannot be said that the
offence committed under Section 306 of the IPC, particularly
in the background when the FIR was registered under
Sections 328, 327, 120-B and 302 of the IPC. It is submitted
that from the referred paragraphs of the case diary mentioned
in impugned order and other materials available on record,
including FIR, it nowhere prima facie disclosing any of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13588 of 2025 dt.18-07-2025
6/11
legal ingredient of the offence punishable under Section 306
of the IPC or for that matter making any cognizable offence
and, therefore, the same be quashed/set aside in view of legal
report of Hon’ble Supreme Court as available through State
of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335].
Mr. Shahi has also relied upon the legal report of Hon’ble
Supreme Court as available through Gurcharan Singh vs.
State of Punjab [(2017) 1 SCC 433].
6. Learned counsel appearing for O.P. No.2 agreed
with submissions as advanced by Mr. Shahi.
7. Learned APP while arguing in support of his
counter affidavit dated 10.04.2025 submitted that as death
was caused due to intake of ‘celphos’, therefore, the charge-
sheet was submitted under Section 306 of the IPC.
8. It would be apposite to reproduce Section 306
of the IPC for better understanding of the case, 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.”
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13588 of 2025 dt.18-07-2025
7/11
9. It would also be apposite to reproduce para-
102 of the Bhajan Lal case (supra), which is as under:-
“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 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 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13588 of 2025 dt.18-07-2025
8/11an 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 Act concerned (under
which a criminal proceeding is
instituted) to the institution and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13588 of 2025 dt.18-07-2025
9/11continuance of the proceedings and/or
where there is a specific provision in
the Code or the Act concerned,
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.”
10. It would further be apposite to reproduce para-
17 of the legal report as available through Gurcharan
Singh‘s case (supra), which is as under:-
“17. While dealing with a case of abetment of suicide in
Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal, Dr.
Justice M.K. Sharma writing for the Division Bench
explained the parameters of Section 306 IPC in the
following terms:
“12. 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 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 there being any positive
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13588 of 2025 dt.18-07-2025
10/11action proximate to the 2 (2010) 1 SCC 707
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.
13. In order to bring a case within the purview
of Section 306 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.”
11. In view of aforesaid factual and legal
submissions and by taking note of fact as the allegation raised
through FIR and also the statement as referred through
various paragraphs of the impugned cognizance order, it
nowhere prima facie appears that act of petitioner was so
active or direct or even connected in any manner, which left
no option to deceased except committing suicide, thus, by
negating prime legal ingredients as to bring allegation within
ambit of Section 306 of the IPC, accordingly, the order dated
11.11.2024 as passed by learned Incharge Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Begusarai in G.R. No.2493 of 2019 arising out of
Teghra P.S. Case No.257 of 2019 qua above-named
petitioner is hereby quashed/set aside.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13588 of 2025 dt.18-07-2025
11/11
12. The present application stands allowed.
13. Let a copy of this judgment be communicated
to the learned trial court forthwith.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.)
Sanjeet/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 19-07-2025 Transmission Date 19-07-2025
[ad_1]
Source link