GOPAL BHANDARI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. the petitioners have praying for quashment of the FIR registered at Crime No.166/12 on 19.03.2012 at Police Station Biaora, District Rajgarh for offence under Section 306/34 of the IPC against the petitioners.

(2.) The prosecution case briefly stated is that on 10.03.2012 a merg intimation was received by the police station Biaora of the suicidal death of deceased Jagdish Sharma from Chirayu Medical College and Hospital, Bhopal. The deceased Jagdish had consumed some poisonous substance on 08.02.2012 and succumbed to death on 09.02.2012 during the treatment. Police Station Biaora registered the FIR as mentioned above. Initially another FIR was registered at the instance of petitioner No.1 Gopal Bhandari for offence under Section 380 of the IPC against two unknown persons as the silver Crown of the deity of the Jain Temple Biaora, District Rajgarh has been stolen. The information regarding theft was given by deceased Jagdish Sharma, in the present case he was the Priest (Pujari) of the said temple, thereafter, police started the investigation but failed to trace the thieves and also filed a Khatma Report (closure report). It is alleged that the police reached the Hospital and on 08.03.2012 itself deceased Jagdish has given statement to the police that the present petitioners were harrasing him due to theft of the Crown of deity of the said temple. After framing of charge and recording of the evidence, petitioners were convicted as stated above, hence the present petition.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are respectable citizen of Biaora and tresses of Jain Temple and they have been falsely implicated in the matter. Counsel submitted that there was no material evidence available on record to establish the prima facie case against the petitioners. The deceased Jagdish was questioned by police regarding the theft in the temple and the petitioners had nothing to do with it. Merely because they were the trustees and the deceased Jagdish had implicated them and there was no evidence on record to falsely implicated in the said offence u/S.306/34 of the IPC. Basically Counsel urged that the ingredient of abetment were missing and there was conspiracy whereby not the deceased was forced to commit suicide and finally there was no criminal intention under such circumstances. There can be no abetment u/S.307 of the IPC. Moreover, Counsel relied on Hariom S/o Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of M.P., 2007 1 MPLJ 195, whereby this Court held that for abetment to commit suicide the prove would be that the act of the accused must fall in any of three categories enumerated u/S.307 of the IPC and when there is no direct and indirect connection between the act of the petitioners and act of the deceased in commission of suicide. Counsel prayed that the FIR be quashed. Counsel also placed reliance on Hiralal Jain Vs. Stated, 2001 CrLJ 1212, Delhi High Court, whereby Counsel submitted that there was an act by the petitioners to show that the deceased had goaded, provoked, incited, urged or encouraged deceased to commit suicide within ingredient of offence of abetment were satisfied and under such circumstances order framing charge for offence of abetment of suicide against the petitioners were not proper and was set aside. Counsel also placed reliance in the matter of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of M.P., 2002 AIR(SC) 1998, whereby Apex Court held that the ingredient of instigation presence of means rea is necessary concomitant of instigation. The charge sheet framed u/S.306 of the IPC against the petitioners were liable to be quashment. Counsel further relied on Raghunath S/o Parsadi Pawar Vs. State of M.P., 2003 3 MPLJ 236, whereby this Court held that the offence of abetment of suicide liability of committing offence. Counsel relied on Vishnu Prasad Vs. State of M.P., 2005 3 MPLJ 23 whereby the deceased was committed suicide in the quarrel with the accused. Finally, Counsel urged that the statements of brother of deceased Banwari was delayed for a period of two days and there is nothing in his statement to indicate that the petitioners committed any act, the instigation or abetment of suicide. Moreover Counsel submitted that the FIR filed in the other case regarding the commission of offence u/S.380 of the IPC was against the unknown persons. The deceased Jagdish was not implicated in any way in the FIR itself, whereby all the allegations made against the petitioners were not true. Infact the earlier criminal case had been closed by the police since in the investigation could not find who had stolen the Crown of deity under such circumstances has been implicated the present petitioners, apparently with ulterior motive and should not have encouraged. Counsel prayed on the basis of the decision sited above the offence should not be made out, there is no ingredient of abatement and in this light alone, the FIR impugned may be quashed.