PRAMOD KUMAR AHIRWAR Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision has been filed under section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. on 1.10.2018 by the applicants against the order dated 14.9.2018 passed by the Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, District Chhatarpur in Sessions Trial No.45/2018 by which the charge under section 306 of IPC has been framed against the applicants.

(2.) The facts of the case in brief are that Mihilal S/o Gangu Ahirwar, aged about 61 years, R/o Gram Guraiyya, District Chhatarpur lodged a Merg Intimation No.25/2018 on 4.6.2018 in Police Station, Civil Lines, Chhattarpur. It is stated in the aforesaid Merg Intimation that in the intervening night of 3.6.2018 and 4.6.2018 at about 11:00 p.m. when all members of the family were sleeping, the elder son Pooran Ahirwar shifted to another room at about 1:00 a.m. at night. In the morning at about 6:00 a.m. the complainant found that his son Pooran is hanging from the ceiling fan by the help of a Sari. The Police inquired into Merg and after inquiry on 23.6.2018 the Police registered Crime No.263/2018 under section 306 of IPC against all three applicants. Thereafter the matter was investigated by the police and after investigation the police came to the conclusion that the suicide was committed by the deceased and the applicants are responsible for abetment of suicide. Therefore, the police filed Challan No.1/2018 under section 306/34 of IPC before the Magistrate Court, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions and thereafter the Sessions Judge made over the case to the Special Judge, who on 14.9.2018 framed the charge under section 306 of IPC against all three applicants. The charge is as under:-

(3.) It is submitted by the learned counsel for applicants that the order of framing of charge is improper, incorrect and illegal in the eyes of law. Previously, a complaint was filed before the Parivar Paramarsh Kendra, which is still pending. There was some dispute between the deceased and his wife. Due to harassment by the deceased, his wife was not willing to live with him. Applicant no.1 is the brother of wife, applicant no.2 is the father of wife and the applicant no.3 is the husband of the sister of wife of deceased. Applicant no.3 is residing far away of 20 kms. from the house of deceased. There is no material against the applicants to proceed with the trial. Therefore, the order of framing of charge is liable to be set aside. It is also submitted that if the prosecution case is accepted as it is, even then the charge could not be framed under section 306 of IPC. Therefore, it is requested to set aside the impugned order dated 14.9.2018.