Madhya Pradesh High Court
Payal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 January, 2025
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:1406
1 MCRC-1937-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 20th OF JANUARY, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 1937 of 2025
PAYAL AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Sudeel Yadav - advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Anirudh Malpani appearing on behalf of Advocate General.
ORDER
1 . This petition under Section 528 of the BNSS has been preferred by
the petitioners for quashing the FIR registered at Crime No.147/2024 at
police station Pandharinath, District Indore for offences punishable under
Section 306 and 34 of the IPC.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that petitioner No.1 is the wife of
deceased Yash Wadhwani. On 23/6/2024 she filed a complaint against Yash
Wadhwani and his family members for offences punishable under Sections
498-A, 323, 294, 506, 34 of the IPC and under Section 3/4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act. It was alleged by her that she had got married to Yash
Wadhwani on 10/12/2020 as per hindu rites and rituals. Her parents had
given sufficient dowry in accordance with their financial condition. However
Yash Wadhwani and her brothers and sisters used to abuse her frequently
and treated her with cruelty on the ground that less dowry has been given in
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHAILESH
MAHADEV SUKHDEVE
Signing time: 1/22/2025
3:55:14 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:1406
2 MCRC-1937-2025
the marriage. They also kept insisting upon her to bring more dowry from
her parents. Various other allegations were also levelled by her as regards the
cruelty having been committed by Yash Wadhwani and his brothers and
sisters. On the basis of complaint lodged by Payal FIR was registered against
the petitioners.
3. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that on 24/6/2024
Yash Wadhwani committed suicide by consuming poisonous substance
Sulphas. The statements of witnesses were then recorded. A suicide note in
the writing of the deceased was also recovered. From the same it transpired
that the deceased had committed suicide on account of registration of
criminal case against him for offences punishable under Section 498-A, 323,
294, 506, 34 of the IPC and under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,
which according to the deceased was a false case. Thereafter the police has
registered the offence under Section 306/34 of the IPC against the
petitioners. The petitioner No.1 is the wife of deceased Yash Wadhwani,
petitioners No.2 and 3 are parent-in-laws of the deceased, petitioners No.4 to
9 are other relatives and petitioners No.10 to 12 are persons who had
allegedly accompanied petitioner No.1 for lodging the complaint.
4. The challenge to the FIR has been made by the learned counsel for
the petitioners submitting that even if the entire allegations are accepted on
their face value then it would be clear that no offence under Section 306 of
the IPC is made out. It is submitted that petitioner No.1 was subjected to
cruelty and if she lodged an FIR thereby taking the legal recourse against her
husband, then it cannot be said that petitioners had in any manner abetted the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHAILESH
MAHADEV SUKHDEVE
Signing time: 1/22/2025
3:55:14 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:1406
3 MCRC-1937-2025
deceased to commit suicide. It is further submitted that if the deceased was
hypersensitive in nature, then the same cannot be said to be an abetment to
commit suicide.
5. Per contra, petition is vehemently opposed by counsel for the State.
However, it is fairly conceded by counsel for parties that only allegation
against petitioners is that on account of lodging of false FIR under Section
498-A, 406, 294, 506 of IPC and under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition
Act, deceased Yash Wadhwani had committed suicide.
6. The issue which hence arises is as to whether registration of crime
and filing of charge sheet which according to the deceased is a false case
would amount to abetment to commit suicide or not.
7. This issue has already been considered in detail by a Coordinate
Bench of this Court at Principal Seat at Jabalpur in M.Cr.C.No.14371 of
2024 (Beena Lodhi & Ors. V/s. State of M.P. & Anr. ) by order dated
28/05/2024 and it has been held as under :-
“9. Section 306 of I.P.C. 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 also be liable to fine.'”
10. “Abetment” is defined under Section 107 of I.P.C. which 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
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 willful misrepresentation, or by
willful concealment of a material fact which he is bound toSignature Not Verified
Signed by: SHAILESH
MAHADEV SUKHDEVE
Signing time: 1/22/2025
3:55:14 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:14064 MCRC-1937-2025
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.
Illustration
A, a public officer, is authorised by a warrant from a Court of
Justice to apprehend Z. B, knowing that fact and also that C is not
Z, willfully represents to A that C is Z, and thereby intentionally
causes A to apprehend C. Here B abets by instigation the
apprehension of C.
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 facilitate the commission
thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.”
11. The Supreme Court in the case of Chitresh Kumar
Chopra vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) reported in
(2009) 16 SCC 605, while dealing with the term “instigation”,
held as under :-
“16…………….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. 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 to be inferred. A
word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the
consequences to actually follow, cannot be said to be instigation.
17. Thus, to constitute ‘instigation’, a person who instigates
another has to provoke, incite, urge or encourage the doing of an
act by the other by ‘goading’ or ‘urging forward’. The dictionary
meaning of the word ‘goad’ is ‘a thing that stimulates someone
into action; provoke to action or reaction’ (see Concise Oxford
English Dictionary); “to keep irritating or annoying somebody
until he reacts” (see Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, 7 th
Edn.).”
12. The Supreme Court in the case of Praveen Pradhan vs.
State of Uttaranchal and Anothers reported in (2012) 9 SCC 734
held as under :-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHAILESH
MAHADEV SUKHDEVE
Signing time: 1/22/2025
3:55:14 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:1406
5 MCRC-1937-2025
17. The offence of abetment by instigation depends upon the
intention of the person who abets and not upon the act which is
done by the person who has abetted. The abetment may be by
instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid as provided under
Section 107 IPC. However, the words uttered in a fit of anger or
omission without any intention cannot be termed as instigation.
(Vide: State of Punjab v. Iqbal Singh (1991) 3 SCC 1), Surender
v. State of Haryana (2006) 12 SCC 375, Kishori Lal v. State of
M.P. (2007) 10 SCC 797) and Sonti Rama Krishna v. Sonti Shanti
Sree (2009) 1 SCC 554)
18. In fact, from the above discussion it is apparent that instigation
has to be gathered from the circumstances of a particular case. No
straitjacket formula can be laid down to find out as to whether in a
particular case there has been instigation which forced 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 CrPC.”
13. The Supreme Court in the case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh
Sengar vs. State of M.P. reported in (2002) 5 SCC 371 has held as
under :-
“6. Section 107 IPC defines abetment to mean that a person abets
the doing of a thing if he firstly, 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 thirdly, intentionally aids, by
any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.”
Further, in para 12 of the judgment, it is held as under:
“12. ….. The word “instigate” denotes incitement or urging to do
some drastic or inadvisable action or to stimulate or incite.
Presence of mens rea, therefore, is the necessary concomitant of
instigation. ….”
14. The Supreme Court in the case of Gangula Mohan
Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2010) 1 SCC 750
needs mentioned here, in which Hon’ble Apex Court has held that
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHAILESH
MAHADEV SUKHDEVE
Signing time: 1/22/2025
3:55:14 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:1406
6 MCRC-1937-2025
“abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or
intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a
positive act on part of accused to instigate or aid in committing
suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. In order to convict a
person under section 306 IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea to
commit offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which
leads deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act
must have been intended to push deceased into such a position that
he commits suicide. Also, reiterated, if it appears to Court that a
victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary
petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common
to society to which victim belonged and such petulance, discord
and differences were not expected to induce a similarly
circumstances individual in a given society to commit suicide,
conscience of Court should not be satisfied for basing a finding
that accused charged of abetting suicide should be found guilty.
Herein, deceased was undoubtedly hypersensitive to ordinary
petulance, discord circumstances of case, none of the ingredients
of offence under Section 306 made out. Hence, appellant’s
conviction, held unsustainable”.
15. In the case of State of West Bengal vs. Orilal Jaiswal
and Another reported in (1994) 1 SCC 73, the Supreme Court has
held that “This Court has cautioned that the Court should be
extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHAILESH
MAHADEV SUKHDEVE
Signing time: 1/22/2025
3:55:14 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:1406
7 MCRC-1937-2025
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 appears 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 that accused charged of abetting the offence
of suicide should be found guilty.”
16. The Supreme Court in the case of M. Mohan vs. State
represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police reported in
AIR 2011 SC 1238 has held that “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 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/she committed suicide.”
17. The Supreme Court in the case of Kishori Lal vs. State
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHAILESH
MAHADEV SUKHDEVE
Signing time: 1/22/2025
3:55:14 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:1406
8 MCRC-1937-2025
of M.P. reported in (2007) 10 SCC 797 has held in para 6 as
under:-
“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.”
18. In the case of Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu vs. State of West
Bengal reported in (2010) 1 SCC 707, the Supreme Court has held
as under:-
“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 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.
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 saidSignature Not Verified
Signed by: SHAILESH
MAHADEV SUKHDEVE
Signing time: 1/22/2025
3:55:14 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:14069 MCRC-1937-2025
offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before
he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC.
14. 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.
Learned counsel for the respondent State, however, clearly stated
before us that it would be a 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.
15. In view of the aforesaid situation and position, we have
examined the provision of clause thirdly which provides that a
person would be held to have abetted the doing of a thing when he
intentionally does or omits to do anything in order to aid the
commission of that thing. The Act further gives an idea as to who
would be intentionally aiding by any act of doing of that thing
when in Explanation 2 it is provided as follows:
“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.”
16. Therefore, the issue that arises for our consideration is whether
any of the aforesaid clauses namely firstly alongwith explanation 1
or more particularly thirdly with Explanation 2 to Section 107 is
attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case so as to
bring the present case within the purview of Section 306 IPC.”
19. The Supreme Court in the case of Amit Kapur V/s.
Ramesh Chander and Another reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460 has
held as under :-
”35. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has relied
upon the judgment of this Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v.
State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (2009) 16 SCC 605 to contend that
the offence under Section 306 read with Section 107 IPC is
completely made out against the accused. It is not the stage for us
to consider or evaluate or marshal the records for the purposes of
determining whether the offence under these provisions has been
committed or not. It is a tentative view that the Court forms on the
basis of record and documents annexed therewith. No doubt that
the word “instigate” used in Section 107 IPC has been explained
by this Court in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9
SCC 618 to say that where the accused had, by his acts orSignature Not Verified
Signed by: SHAILESH
MAHADEV SUKHDEVE
Signing time: 1/22/2025
3:55:14 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:140610 MCRC-1937-2025
omissions or by a continued course of conduct, created such
circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option
except to commit suicide, an instigation may have to be inferred.
In other words, instigation has to be gathered from the
circumstances of the case. All cases may not be of direct evidence
in regard to instigation having a direct nexus to the suicide. There
could be cases where the circumstances created by the accused are
such that a person feels totally frustrated and finds it difficult to
continue existence. ….”
20. The word “instigate” denotes incitement or urging to do
some drastic or inadvisable action or to stimulate or incite.
Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite, urge or
encourage to do an act.
21. The Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar Vs.
State of Chhattisgarh reported in (2001) 9 SCC 648 has held that
“a word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending
the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be
instigation. 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.”
22. The Supreme Court in the case of Kumar @ Shiva
Kumar Vs. State of Karnataka decided on 01.03.2024 in Criminal
Appeal No.1427/2011 has also laid down the same law.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHAILESH
MAHADEV SUKHDEVE
Signing time: 1/22/2025
3:55:14 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:1406
11 MCRC-1937-2025
23. If a married woman makes a complaint to the Police
with regard to commission of an offence under Section 498-A,
406, 294, 506, 34 of IPC and under Section 3/4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act and if the Police after recording statements files
the charge sheet for the said offence, then by no stretch of
imagination it can be said that the married woman, who had
lodged the report against her in-laws, had in any manner abetted
the deceased to commit suicide. Lodging of an FIR is certainly in
accordance with law. If some offence has been committed, then
the only option available with the complainant is to lodge an FIR
and if somebody decides to take recourse of legal remedy
available to her, then the said act of the complainant cannot be
said to be an illegal Act thereby abetting the deceased to commit
suicide. Whether the allegations made in the FIR are correct or not
is to be decided by the trial Court after recording evidence of the
witnesses. A person would get an opportunity to cross-examine the
complainant and her witnesses to dislodge her case that she was
ever treated with cruelty. If a person is hypersensitive and
therefore, decides to put an end to his life, then such an act of the
deceased cannot be said to be an outcome of abetment. By lodging
the FIR, the applicants had not committed any illegal act and since
a victim has a solitary option of approaching the Police and
thereafter to the Court for redressal of her grievances and if the
suicide committed by the deceased on the pretext that he has been
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHAILESH
MAHADEV SUKHDEVE
Signing time: 1/22/2025
3:55:14 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:1406
12 MCRC-1937-2025
falsely framed in offence under Section 498-A, 406, 294, 506, 34
of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, then it cannot be
said that the widow of the deceased or her parents had abetted the
deceased to commit suicide.”
8. The facts of the present case are completely similar to the
facts of the aforesaid case and the principles as have been laid
down therein are fully applicable to the present case also. If a
complaint had been lodged by petitioner No.1 against the deceased
as regards commission of certain offences and if on the same an
FIR had been registered then by no stretch of imagination it can be
said that petitioner No.1 had in any manner abetted the deceased
to commit suicide. She had taken recourse to legal remedy
available to her hence her act cannot be said to be an illegal act
thereby abetting the deceased to commit suicide. For the same
reason it cannot be said that the other petitioners who are other
relatives and acquaintances of petitioner No.1 have also abetted
the deceased to commit suicide.
9. Thus in view of the available facts and circumstances of
the case, it cannot be said that any offence under Section 306/34 of
the IPC is made out against the petitioners. Consequently, the
petition deserves to be and is accordingly allowed. FIR at Crime
No.147/2024, registered at police station Pandhrinath, Indore
against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Section
306/34 of the IPC is hereby quashed.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHAILESH
MAHADEV SUKHDEVE
Signing time: 1/22/2025
3:55:14 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:1406
13 MCRC-1937-2025
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
SS/-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHAILESH
MAHADEV SUKHDEVE
Signing time: 1/22/2025
3:55:14 PM
[ad_1]
Source link