RAMESH KUMAR SAHU Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner/accused has filed this Misc. Criminal Case under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the First Information Report, in connection with Crime No.24/2018, for offence punishable under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC for brevity), registered at Police Station Atraila, District Rewa (MP), and all consequent proceedings arising out of the aforesaid Crime No.24/2018, pending before Additional Sessions Judge Teothar, District Rewa (MP).

(2.) The prosecution case in brief is that the marriage of deceased sonu @ Sombati Sahu was solemnized with petitioner/accused on 24.5.2008. Out of the said wedlock, they were blessed with four children. On 14.2.2018, deceased sustained burnt injuries and died. Merg was registered. It is found that petitioner/accused continuously tortured and humiliated her, so she committed suicide.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submitted that petitioner/accused is a Security Guard. Petitioner/ accused is discharging his duties as Security Guard under the Company and staying at Mumbai. She was living with her children at Koni Pokhri. Deceased was living at her house, so she committed due to tension because petitioner/accused was living at Mumbai for his employment, therefore, no case is made out under Section 306 of Indian penal Code. After the death of deceased, Naksha Panchnama was prepared by the police. The independent witnesses were called. At that time, the father of deceased was also present, but no allegation about cruelty is alleged against him. After one month, the relatives of deceased made concocted story and alleged about cruelty and demand of dowry, so this is a case of purely false implication. Perusal of the statement of family members of the deceased would go to show that the allegations have been levelled respect of demand of money, therefore, she committed suicide. Thus, no offence under Section 306 of IPC is made out as against the petitioner/ accused. There is no instigation of committing the offence by the accused/petitioner. There is no material available on record on the basis of which it can be said that the petitioner/accused abetted the deceased to commit suicide. So, no offence has been committed by the accused/petitioner with respect to harassment of the deceased, because for last eight years, they have been living together peacefully and discharging their marital duties. The petitioner has never even subjected the deceased any cruelty or even in relation to demand of dowry. There is no complaint prior to the incident about the cruelty and demand of dowry against the petitioner/accused. Petitioner/accused used to stay at Mumbai for the purpose of his employment. Deceased was residing with her four children at Koni Pokhri, so the reason appears to have been for such a drastic step by the deceased is the living of the petitioner/accused far away at Mumbai. Petitioner/accused used to come once in a year or during festival. The loneliness is the main cause of taking such extreme step by the deceased. Therefore, prosecution has failed to collect the evidence which may constitute commission of any offence against the petitioner/accused. There has not been any complaint with regard to any ill-treatment or harassment during the entire period of marriage between the petitioner/accused and deceased, so no case is made out under Section 306 of IPC. No mens ria can be inferred for the purpose of commission of offence by the petitioner/accused, so this is a proper case in which inherent jurisdiction can be invoked. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for quashing the FIR and subsequent proceedings in the aforesaid Crime No.24/2018. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused relied upon the decisions in the case of the Apex Court in the cases of Bhagwan Das Vs. Kartar Singh and others [(2007) 11 SCC 205], State of M.P. Vs. Kusum [(2007) 10 SCC 799], Mahendra Singh and another Vs. State of M.P. [1995 Supp (3) SCC 731], Kamleshkumar Ishwardas Patel Vs. Union of India and others [1995 Supp (3) SCC 732] and the decisions of this Court in the cases of Abhau Kumar Katare Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (M.Cr.C.No.5952/2018), Vinod Singh Baghel Vs. State of M.P. (Cr. Revision No.940/2014, decided on 14.1.2015), Kishorilal Vs. State of M.P. [(2007) 10 SCC 797], Aman Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [(2005) 2 MPLJ 282], Munnalal Vs. State of M.P. [(1995) 2 MPWN 113], Bhagwan Das Vs. State of M.P. [(2010) 2 MPWN 110].