STATE OF M.P. Vs. ROOP CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case has been registered on suo motu notice issued by this Court in M.Cr.C.No.3990/2017 on the ground that the respondent had earlier filed a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashment of the proceedings which was registered as M.Cr.C.No.8083/2016 and along with the said petition a copy of the charge sheet was also annexed. Since the suicide note was made available by the relatives of the deceased belatedly, therefore, this Court while deciding the M.Cr.C.No.8083/2016, this Court by order dated 22.12.2016 had expressed its reservations with regard to the genuineness of the suicide note seized by the police. In M.Cr.C. No.8083/2016, the respondent had filed an incomplete charge sheet and had suppressed the copy of the report of the Handwriting Expert, according to which, the suicide note was in the handwriting of the deceased. The petition filed by the respondent was allowed and his prosecution for offence under Section 306/34 of IPC in S.T.No.66/2016 pending before the Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Vidisha was quashed.

(2.) Later on the co-accused Smt. Bharti Ahirwar, wife of the deceased too filed a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashment of the criminal proceedings which was registered as M.Cr.C.No.3990/2017.

(3.) By relying on para 23 of the order dated 22.12.2016 passed by this Court in M.Cr.C.No.8083/2016 it was submitted by the counsel for the co-accused Smt. Bharti Ahirwar that since this Court has already expressed its doubt on the genuineness of the suicide note, therefore, no case is made out against Smt. Bharti Ahirwar also. During argument of the said application, this Court came to know that in fact the respondent had suppressed the report of the Handwriting Expert from this Court. Accordingly, a suo motu notice was issued to show cause as to why the order dated 22.12.2016 passed in M.Cr.C.No.8083/2016 be not recalled.