VIVEK KUMAR JAIN Vs. STATE OF M.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition u/s. 482 of the Cr.P.C is taking exception to the registration of offence vide Crime No. 575/2013 dated 18.02. 2013 for alleged offence u/s. 306 of the IPC against the petitioners.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners referred the order dated 27.11. 2014 passed in the present case in which this court earlier allowed the petition preferred by the petitioner and quashed the FIR. Later on, when this fact came to the knowledge of respondent no. 3/complainant-Smt. Neelam Singh (who happens to be the complainant in the present case) filed application for recalling of the order on the ground that she was never given notice regarding filing of the petition and was never heard, therefore this court vide order dated 02. 11. 2017 in M.Cr.C. No. 12257/2014 recalled the order dated 27.11. 2014 passed in this petition and restored the petition to original number. Thereafter the matter is heard finally today.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that case is of false implication. Petitioners are businessmen engaged in commodity exchange, therefore, they have nothing to do with the respondent complainant. He invested the money in the stock exchange market and when failed in his endavours then he committed suicide. No case is made out. He relied upon judgements rendered by the Apex Court in the cases of Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Senghar v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2002) 5 SCC 371, Sonty Rama Krishna Vs. Sonti Shanti Sree and Anr., (2009) 1 SCC 554, United India Insurance Company Vs. Santro Devi and Others, (2009) 1 SCC 558, Gangula Mohan Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2010) 1 SCC 750 and Praveen Pradhan Vs. State of Uttaranchal and Another, (2012) 9 SCC 734.