CHANDRASHEKHAR VERMA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present petition under Sec. 482 of CrPC for quashment of FIR dtd. 25/5/2024 in crime no. 362/2024 filed against the applicant alongwith all subsequent proceedings of the above said crime number.

(2.) Fact of the Prosecution story in brief are that, the deceased Arti Sahu committed Suicide on 29/4/2024 midnight 1 O'clock by consuming Sulfas. In this regard police started the inquiry and recorded the statements of the family members of the deceased named Gayatri Bai - mother of the deceased, Dines - Father of the deceased and Gajendra - brother of the deceased. The family members of the deceased stated in their statements that the deceased was working in the HDFC Bank Gold Loan Department, Khategaon. She borrowed Rs.3,00,000.00 rupees from Manish Jat on interest for her personal uses and returned it, however, Manish Jat has demanded for the additional amount and made pressure for it and the present applicant borrowed Rs.5,00,000.00 from the deceased for his uses and has not returned it. Thereafter, Manish Jat and the applicant have harassed the deceased consequently, due to which the deceased committed suicide.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and he is falsely implicated in the present matter. the applicant fairly produced the record of money transactions between the applicant and the deceased and if the applicant borrowed the amount from the deceased that would reflect in the mobile chats or transactions between the applicant and the deceased. The applicant came into the acquaintance of the deceased. three weeks prior to her suicide and no documents on records by which the deceased paid any single amount except the returned amount of the loan obtained from the applicant In a newspaper, the applicant has read the news that the deceased has not said anything about him. The applicant has been wrongly added as an accused in the present matter and his arrest would violate personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, There is no opportunity of a hearing provided to the applicant in the present matter by the non-applicant. He placed reliance in the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of State of Haryana and another Vs. Bhajanlal and others AIR 1992 SC 604. K.V. Prakash Babu V/s. State of Karnataka reported as AIR 2016 SC 5430, M. Arujunan V/s. State (2019) 3 SCC 315, State of Bengal Vs Indrajeet Kundu (2019)10 SCC 188.