PRAHLAD KUMAR LARIA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As prayed by the learned counsel for the parties, heard them finally. The applicant has challenged the registration of criminal complaint case No. 988/2012 pending before the JMFC, Anuppur, whereby the cognizance was taken for offence punishable under section 306/34, 120B of IPC.

(2.) The facts of the case, in short, are that, the respondent No. 2 had filed a criminal complaint against the applicant and one lecturer Shri S.S. Paraste that they had shown the attendance of the deceased Anil Singh to be short. However, they recommended his admission form to appear in the Board examination and his form was rejected. The applicant as well as Shri Paraste tortured the deceased that he could not appear in the examination due to shortage of attendance, whereas attendance of the deceased was not short. Under such circumstances, the deceased Anil Singh committed suicide.

(3.) After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be apparent that there was no relation of the deceased with the applicant, so that presumption under section 113A of Evidence Act may apply. Allegations made against the applicant do not fall within the purview of sections 107 or 109 of IPC and therefore, prima facie no offence punishable under section 306 of IPC is made out against the applicant. Consequently, no offence of criminal conspiracy shall be made out. The deceased had an opportunity to attend the school regularly to complete his attendance. It was for his parents to talk with his son as to why the deceased was tortured. If the attendance of the deceased was short then, it was for the parents to see that their ward would have attended the school regularly and if the applicant was torturing the deceased then, his case should have been fought before the Board because the admission form was recommended by the school. There were opportunities to the deceased to come out from the situation. It appears that since he did not attend the school in a proper manner therefore, he could not show his face to the parents. Under such circumstances, for default of the deceased, it cannot be said that that the applicant was responsible. It is for the prosecution to prove that the accused did not leave any option to the deceased except to commit suicide. In the present case, such position is lacking. Under such circumstances, the learned Magistrate has committed an error of law in registering the complaint against the applicant for offence punishable under sections 306 or 120B of IPC. It is a fit case in which the inherent powers of this Court under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. may be exercised.