SHARAD KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present application under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.5450 of 2016, State Vs. Sharad Kumar and another, arising out of Case Crime No.135 of 2016, under Sec. 306 IPC, Police Station Maheshganj, District Pratapgarh as well as the cognizance order dtd. 6/12/2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh.

(2.) Facts, in brief, are that Shishir Kumar, elder brother of the applicants, consumed Sulphas on 27/5/2016 and he succumbed. Smt. Kanti Srivastava, wife of Shishir Kumar, informed the police about the said incident, which is entered vide Report No.26 of 27/5/2016 at 15.30 hrs. that her husband committed suicide by consuming Sulphas and inquest was also prepared on the same day. Thereafter, post mortem was conducted on 28/5/2016. Opposite party no.2, brother in-law of the deceased, lodged an FIR on 2/6/2016 making allegation that applicants abetted the deceased to commit suicide for the reason that the loan, which was advanced by the bank to the deceased, was to be repaid by the applicants and the deceased, who are real brothers, but the applicants refused to repay the loan and also they did not give the share of the property, therefore, the deceased Shishir Kumar committed suicide. The FIR further indicates that father of the applicants had assured the deceased that his brothers will also help him in repaying the loan.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that all the three sons i.e. applicants and the deceased were residing separately and deceased Shishir Kumar had no issue. The deceased had purchased a Tractor by taking a loan, but could not repay the amount of loan, that is why a recovery notice was issued against him. The deceased was taken to Swaroop Rani Hospital, Allahabad for treatment by the applicants themselves, however, deceased could not be saved. Statement of father of the applicants was also recorded under Sec. 161 Cr.P.C., in which he categorically stated that it is opposite party no.2, who was responsible for abetment to suicide because he wanted that the deceased should adopt his son, so that he could claim the property of the deceased. Counsel for the applicants has further submitted that name of the deceased was recorded in the revenue record as co-tenure holder along with the applicants and he took the loan by mortgaging his land, which was recorded in his name. He has also submitted that there is no act of abetment by the applicants in commission of crime. It is further submitted that there is no ingredient of Sec. 106 IPC against the applicants as there is no evidence of any kind of active act committed by the applicants. Charge sheet has been filed on the wrong presumption that applicants abetted the deceased to commit suicide without there being any evidence. Learned counsel has further submitted that vague and bald allegations have been levelled against the applicants that too without supporting of any evidence and the applicants have been charge sheeted on surmises and conjunctures.