MUKESH AGNIHOTRI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision under Sec. 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicants have challenged the validity of the order dtd. 11/1/2021 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad in ST No. 32 of 2020 whereby charges for commission of offence punishable under Ss. 306, 506 (I)/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec. 4 of the MP Riniyon Ka Sanrakshan Adhiniyam, 1937 have been framed.

(2.) As per the prosecution case, Rajendra Sarathe (since deceased) committed suicide by hanging himself on 1/6/2019. An FIR has been lodged on 1/6/2019 at police station - Kotwali, Hoshangabad and on the basis of statements of sons of the deceased namely, Rahul Sarathe and Nitin Sarathe wherein they stated that Vikalp Deriya, Kayakalp Deriya, Keerti Mishra, Deepak Parsai, Rajeev Dubey and Mukesh Agnihotri used to torture and harass Rajendra Sarathe (since deceased) for demand of money and they also threatened him that they would kill the entire family. From the aforesaid accused persons, Rajendra Sarathe (since deceased) had borrowed certain amount of loan and the accused persons were torturing and pressurising the deceased for repayment of the said amount of loan. It is alleged that deceased had purchased the material from the shop of the accused persons worth Rs.1,73,000.00 and had issued many cheques as guarantee of the balance amount. Thereafter he returned money to the accused persons in cash but the applicants and other accused persons did not return the cheques issued by the deceased as guarantee. Despite the entire amount was paid by the deceased, the accused persons filed complaint case for offence under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the Court of CJM, Hoshangabad only to harass the deceased.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the trial Court has committed apparent error in framing charges under Ss. 306 and 506 (I)/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec. 4 of the M.P. Riniyon Ka Sanrakshan Adhiniyam, 1937. From the documents of the prosecution itself, it is apparent that the deceased had borrowed certain money from the applicant and other coaccused persons but he could not refund the same and committed suicide. Hence, keeping in view the provision of Sec. 107 of the IPC, no offence is made out. Therefore, prayer has been made to quash the impugned order dtd. 11/1/2021 by which charges have been framed against the applicant. In support of his contentions, counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on the decisions in the cases of Amit Asthana v. State of MP , (M.Cr.C. No.18945 of 2022 decided on 05.07.20222); Vishnu Prasad vs. State of MP 2005 (5) MPHT 62; Ram Naresh and Another v. State of MP, 2002 (2) MPLJ 360; M. Arjunan v. State, AIR 2019 SC 43; and Mayank Sharma vs. State of MP, (M.Cr.C. No.3107 of 2018 decided on 6/12/2018).