HIRALAL JAIN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner by this Criminal Revision Petition No. 274 of 2000 seeks an order quashing the order dated 19.4.2000 of the Additional Sessions Judge framing charge against the petitioner under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The facts of the case are that upon a DD entry lodged in the police station regarding the incident of suicide, the police reached the spot at the factory No. C.S. SMA where they found on the second floor in the godown of the factory body of one person, namely. Rajesh Kumar, lying with the plastic rope tied around its neck and the other end of the rope was fixed to a hook to the roof. On search of the body, a suicide note was Iying which stated :

(2.) On the basis of the DD entry, a case under Section 306 of. the Code was registered and challan filed upon which charges against the accused were framed vide order dated 19.4.1999. The challenge to the order dated 19.4.1999 is on the ground that upon perusal of the material available with the Court, the charge under Section 306, Indian Penal Code could not be made out. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has taken me through a large number of judgments in Pradeep S. Ahluwalia v. The State, 1999 CrI.LJ. 4145=81 (1999) DLT 111 (Delhi); Ghansham Dass v. State of Punjab, 1999 (4) Crimes 372; Mahendra Singh and Another v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1996 Crl.LJ. 894=11 (1996) CCR 570 (SC); Chanchal Kumari and Others v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, AIR 1986 SC 752; State of Gujarat v. Pradyuman Ramanlal Mehta and Others, 1999 Crl.LJ. 736; V. Adinarayana and Another v. State of A.P., 2000 Crl. L.J. 1182; Alka Grewal v. State of M.P., 2000 Crl.LJ. 672; Laxmi & Anr. v. State, 85 (2000) DLT 319. The dicta of all the judgments appears to be that where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and statement of witness recorded in support of the same taken on their face value, does not make out a case against the accused and does not disclose the essential ingredients of the offence which is alleged against the accused, then the proceedings ought to be quashed. The powers of the High Court to act under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have also been clearly spelt out in M/s. Pepsi Food Limited & Ors. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, AIR 1998 SC 128=IV (1997) CCR 108 (SC)=VI (1998) SLT 102, where it was held

(3.) Further, the provisions of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are devised to advance justice and not to frustrate it. Therefore, according to me, if there is no material on record to show that the ingredients of Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code were made out, such proceedings are liable to be quashed under the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code defines the expression 'abetment' and the definition of abetment reads as under: