RITU CHOUBEY Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner-accused has filed this criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure to set-aside the impugned order dated 02/07/2018 passed by Second Additional Session Judge Sagar in S.T. No. 67/2018 whereby learned Second Additional Session Judge, Sagar framed charges for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.

(2.) The facts of the prosecution case are that the marriage of petitioner-accused was solemnized on 18/04/2012 with the deceased Rajneesh Choubey. Deceased Rajneesh Choubey ended his live on 27/03/2013 by hanging himself in his house. Thereafter brother of deceased Rajneesh Choubey filed a complaint against the petitioner-accused and others. It is mentioned in that complaint that marriage of deceased Rajneesh Choubey was solemnized with petitioner-accused on 18/04/2012 thereafter, petitioner-accused lived at matrimonial house with deceased Rajneesh Choubey and other family members. Petitioner-accused humiliated and tortured deceased Rajneesh Choubey and petitioner-accused told deceased Rajneesh Choubey that her marriage solemnized with him without her wish. She did not like deceased Rajneesh Choubey. Petitioner-accused did not do domestic work. She did not provide food to the deceased Rajneesh Choubey. She also alleged character trait. Thereafter she went to her parental house with her ornament. Deceased Rajneesh Choubey went to her parental house to take her back but petitioner-accused refused and abused deceased Rajneesh Choubey. She told that she wants divorce otherwise deceased Rajneesh Choubey and his family members shall be falsely implicated in the case and she want marriage with another person due to this thing, deceased was in depression, thereafter, deceased filed divorce petition on 23/03/2013 before Civil Judge Senior Division, Lalitpur (U.P.) and deceased Rajneesh Choubey was in depression. At that time he telephoned to the petitioner-accused, the petitioner-accused told him to go and die. Thereafter, deceased Rajneesh Choubey came to his house and committed suicide by hanging himself. Learned trial Judge inquired the matter and held there is prima facie material against the petitioner accused, so he took cognizance against the petitioner-accused under Section 306 of IPC thereafter, learned trial judge framed charges against the petitioner-accused under Section 306 of IPC.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner accused submits that after marriage petitioner-accused was compelled to live in her matrimonial home, then facts have been narrated in the complaint are nothing but a bundle of falsehood but the court below has erred in law and also on facts and acted with a material irregularity while framing charges under Section 306 of IPC. The impugned order is perverse and based on no evidence. Petitioner-accused cannot be held liable for any irresponsible steps taken by the deceased. Petitioner-accused resided at her marital home and was being forced to leave her husband due to the latter's disturbing and dangerous behaviour. He further submits that complaint itself shows that the same has been drafted by a skilled person who has expertise in filling such concocted cases and in a very cunning manner made an attempt to abuse the provisions of law. Averments in the complaint do not disclose the ingredients of Section 107 of IPC. The Trial Court ignored that the deceased was under psychiatric treatment and was suffering from depression due to the divorce proceedings with the petitioner-accused. The deceased committed an Anomic and Egoistic suicide due to the failure of self and inability to cope up with the rejection. The trial court has ignored that the family members of the deceased are unnecessarily blaming the petitioner-accused for the death of their family member. Petitioner-accused has no role to play in the death of the deceased. It is evident from the record that the deceased filed divorce petition against petitioner-accused, so it cannot be said that the petitioner-accused wanted to take divorce from deceased Rajneesh Choubey but the deceased was a patient of depression and had other serious behavioural issues which limited him to lead a normal life. On various occasions he abused and assaulted the petitioner-accused. She was threatened with dire consequences, following which she was compelled to flee to her maternal home without even her basic belongings. The deceased was habitual drinker and had absolutely no friend circle which further worsened his psychological state. When the petitioner-accused reasoned with him and her in-laws, she was snubbed and was asked to adjust with deceased Rajneesh Choubey, so it is prayed that the impugned order be set-aside.