VIRENDRA RATHORE Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition under section 482 of Crimial P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner seeking quashment of the proceedings instituted through first information report registered vide Crime No.221/2015 at police station Isagarh, District Ashok Nagar.

(2.) As per the story of the prosecution, on 10.5.2015 an information was received in respect of death of victim- Mukesh and after marg inquiry No. 4/15, FIR was registered on 27.5.2015. On medical investigation, the cause of death was found to be suicidal in nature. The statements of the wife of the deceased and other relatives have been taken in which it was figured that the deceased Mukesh was under stress because of the loan taken by the deceased from some persons, to whom present accused is related, as they have advanced loan to the deceased and they were pressing for repayment of the said amount. Due to nonpayment of the same, the accused persons, including the petitioner have mentally tortured and harassed him in respect of repayment and threatened him as well as his family members for dire consequences and, therefore, the victim succumbed due to such mental harassment and committed suicide by consuming poisonous tablets (sulphas).

(3.) According to the counsel for petitioner, the initial statements of the wife of deceased, namely, Devki Sharma as well as his daughter, Muskan Sharma, reveal that the name of present petitioner not at all figured in their statements, but later on case was improved against the petitioner when the statement of wife was taken on 31.5.2015. The counsel for petitioner submitted that eyen the prosecution witness Kamal Singh did not support the case of the prosecution against the present petitioner as he has not referred the name of petitioner in any manner in respect of advancing threats or verbal scuffle so as to reach home the allegations in respect of section 306 of IPC. He further submitted that the present petitioner has been falsely implicated and prosecution has tried to implicate him as afterthought. He was not at all involved in any manner so as to cause any instigation, threat or harassment to treat his conduct as instigation and to frame him for an offence under section 306 of IPC. On the basis of section 107 of IPC, wherein the abatement has been defined, no case for instigation is made out against the petitioner. He relied upon the judgments of the Hon 'ble Supreme Court and that of this Court rendered in the matter of Sanju alias Sanfay Singh Sengar Vs. State o/M.P. [2002(2) JLJ 275=AIR 2002 SC 1998], Ram Naresh and another Vs. State of M.P. and others [2002 (2) MPHT 183], Rajesh Shivhare Vs. State of M.P. [2004(4) MPHT 7], Vishnu Prasad Vs. State of M.P. [2005(11) MPWN 112=2005 CrLR (MP) £50], Devendra Singh Vs. State of M.P. [2007(111) MPWN 95=2007(3) MPHT 247], Ramchandra Vs. State of M.P [2009(1) MPWN 77=2009(1) MPLU (Cri.) 172],