MOHANLAL RATHORE Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present revision challenging the order dated 24/10/2019 passed by Sessions Judge, Neemuch, District-Neemuch in S.T. No. 46/2019, thereby charge has been framed against the petitioner for offence under Section 306 of IPC.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that, the complainant has filed a report against the present petitioner that, Vidyabai, wife of Poonamchand(deceased), has made a complaint two years ago that Poonamchand (deceased) has sold two bighas of land to the present petitioner for a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- and has told that the rest of the amount would be payable at the time of execution of the sale deed. However, although a period of two years has been passed the said payment has not been made in spite of repeated demands. Therefore, on 8.9.2019 Poonamchand went to the house of the present petitioner saying that he is going to take the money from the petitioner and after that, he did not return to the home. On 9.9.2019, one Vikram had come to the house of Poonamchand and stated that Poonamchand has committed suicide by hanging. The police thereafter, carried on investigation the matter and after investigation, the Police has registered a FIR against the petitioner under Section 306 of IPC and challan was filed and learned Sessions Judge has framed charge against the petitioner on 24/10/2019 under Section 306 of IPC. Being aggrieved by that order, the petitioner has filed the present revision for quashment of charges.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that, from perusal of the allegations made in the FIR, no case is made out against the petitioner. He further submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is that he demanded the money from the deceased, which was due to him and because of this demand, the deceased has committed suicide. To bolster his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the order passed by this Court in the case of Banshilal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh decided on 19.6.2019. He further submitted that even if the allegation made in the FIR is accepted at its true value, no case under section 306 of IPC is made out against them. Necessary ingredients to constitute the offence under section 306 of IPC are lacking in the present case. There is no allegation against the present petitioner that at any point of time, he has provoked, engaged, goaded or instigated the deceased to commit suicide. It is further stated that recovery of loan does not constitute abetment to commit suicide within the meaning of section 306 read with section 107 of IPC. There is no prima-facie evidence against the petitioner that by doing positive act, he has instigated, aided or provoked the deceased to commit suicide. In such circumstances, he submits that the charges framed against the petitioners be quashed. He has further placed reliance upon the judgment delivered by this Court in the case of Radheshyam Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2014 Cr.L.R. ( M.P.) 416 as well as the order dated 07/03/2017 passed in the case of Chandmal Dandwani Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh.