KALU @ RAMLAKHAN DANGI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As prayed by learned counsel for the parties, heard them finally.

(2.) The applicant has preferred the present petition under section 482 of the CrPC to quash the proceeding of the Crime No. 186/13 registered at Police Station Jaisinghnagar, Distt. Sagar.

(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 should be a direct nexus between the act of suicide and overt acts done by the applicant. In the present case, if the overt acts of the applicant are considered, then he did not induce the deceased to commit suicide. The overt acts of the applicant do not fall within the purview of section 107 or 109 of the IPC. If the applicant assaulted the deceased on 15.9.2013, then deceased could have lodged an FIR against the applicant. It appears that upto 16.9.2013 the deceased did not take any step against the applicant and thereafter, he gave threat to him not to inform about the previous incident. When the incident was not so grave, there was non need to the deceased to inform about the incident to anyone. Therefore, the alleged threat given to the deceased was not so important. The deceased committed suicide due to any other reason and the reason was suppressed by the parents and relatives of the deceased. If the deceased was aggrieved with the acts of the applicant, then he would have informed about the incident to his family members and he could have lodged an FIR against the applicant. The overt acts of the applicant were no such so that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the deceased had committed suicide due to instigation of the applicant. Primafacie, no offence under section 306 of the IPC is made out against the applicant.