SANJIVANEE SUKLIKAR Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure invoking inherent powers of the High Court has been filed on behalf of petitioners/accused persons Sanjivanee Suklikar, Ashwani Kumar and Jaswant Prajapati. It has been prayed hereby that the first information report recorded on 18.03.2018 by P.S. Government Railway, Bhopal in crime no.231/2018 under Section 306 read with section 34 of the IPC against aforesaid petitioners, be quashed.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this miscellaneous criminal case may be summarized as hereunder: petitioner Sanjivanee Suklikar lodged a written report in the police station against deceased Moolchand to the effect that she owned an orchard at village, Barjorpur admeasuring about 4 acres. She had planted 2,000 pomegranate saplings in the orchard. In the year 2017, the plants were three years old. She had also made arrangement for irrigation of the aforesaid plants by a drip-line. At about 8:00 p.m. on 19.04.2017, deceased Moolchand had set dried stumps of the crop which were left behind after the harvest, on fire. At that time Moolchand was present in the field. The fire went out of control and reached the orchard of petitioner Sanjivanee. As a result, the pomegranate plants were destroyed in the fire. The drip irrigation line was also destroyed. Consequently, she sustained loss of Rs.3,00,000/-. She lodged a written report in this regard in the police station. At about 8:00 a.m. on 20.04.2017, a police man in plain clothes from police out-post Divnaganj, went to the house of the deceased and took him to police out-post on the ground that aforesaid complaint of arson had been lodged against him. Whereon, Phool Singh and Ranjit Singh, sons of Moolchand, reached the police out-post. At that place, Head Constable Hariom Rana told them regarding the report lodged by petitioner Sanjivanee. He adviced them to meet the petitioner; whereon, they went to Pali House to meet petitioner Sanjivanee and her son Ashwani Kumar. Petitioners alleged that every year Moolchand sets his crop afire and that year also the stumps must have been set on fire by deceased Moolchand. They claimed that they had sustained a loss of Rs.3,00,000/- and unless deceased Moolchand and his sons compensated the petitioners for the loss, Moolchand will have to go to jail. Whereon, the deceased and his sons returned to the police out-post and told Head Constable Hariom Rana that they were unable to pay Rs.3,00,000/- and the police could proceed in the matter as per the law. They would await the result of proceedings in the Court and would deal with the matter accordingly. When they were leaving the police out-post, petitioners Sanjivanee and Ashwani again threatened them that if they would not bring Rs.3,00,000/- next morning, Moolchand would have to go to jail. When Moolchand returned home, he told his sons that he was harassed for past four years by petitioner Sanjivanee and her sons, who wanted him to sell his field to the petitioners. The petitioner Sanjivanee also used to threaten the deceased that if he disclosed the matter to his sons, she would get his sons killed. The sons of the deceased assured him that they would report the matter against the petitioners to police in the morning and the deceased should sleep peacefully at night. However, the deceased was not reassured and was purturbed. He committed suicide that night by lying under a running train. Therefore, an offence under Section 306 read with section 34 of the IPC has been registered against the petitioners.

(3.) Inviting attention of the Court to various authorities, it has been argued on behalf of the petitioners that even if all allegations made against the petitioners are taken at their face value, their act and conduct would not fall under the ambit of abetment of suicide.