HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR M.Cr.C. No.1716/2011
Zarina Bi and others
State of Madhya Pradesh
PRESENT : Hon. M.A.Siddiqui,J. Shri Abhijeet A. Awasthi, Adv. for petitioners. Shri P.C.Jain, PL for respondent/State. ORDER RESERVED ON 21/02/2011.
ORDER PASSED ON 24/02/2011. ORDER
This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners to invoke the extra ordinary powers of this Court to quash the proceedings in ST No. 99/10, pending before Sessions Judge, Harda. (2) Undisputedly, Babbi @ Hamid who committed suicide was husband of petitioner no.2 and son-in-law of petitioner no.1 ,and petitioner no.3 was the brother-in- law.
(3) As per prosecution story, Babbi @ Hamid committed suicide by jumping in front of a moving train. He left copy of suicidal note and it was pointed out that original was in the house. As per suicidal note, the allegation against -2-
the petitioner no.2 was levelled that she initiated proceeding under S.125 Cr.P.C. by which Rs.4,000/- per month were ordered to be given by way of maintenance. The husband was unemployed and he used to do labouring and could not get sufficient means for himself so he was unable to pay the amount and some settlement was also asked in which Rs.3,00,000/- were demanded, and by telephonic messages the deceased was given various types of threats. So after writing a detailed suicidal note against all the petitioners, which he kept in his house and with the copy of suicidal note, he committed suicide. Police recovered the suicidal note and registered a crime under Section 306/34 of IPC at Crime No. 188/10 against the petitioners on 17.05.10, and filed charge sheet. Case has been committed for trial and petitioners are facing the trial.
(4) Learned counsel for petitioners have submitted that the acts as per allegations of suicidal note do not come within the purview of instigation as has been defined under Section 107 of IPC. He prays that proceedings may be quashed.
(5) Learned counsel for the State submits that no interference is called for in this petition as deceased has written a detailed suicidal letter of near about 31/2 pages -3-
addressed to Supdt. of Police, and Incharge of Police Station, Harda in which specific allegations have been made against the petitioners.
(6) Learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Vedprakash Tarachand Bhaiji vs. State of M.P. 1995 MPLJ 458 wherein the allegation was that accused persons goaded the deceased to refund or repay the amount advanced by them to him, it was held that no case for alleged commission of offence under Section 306/34 IPC was made out and charge sheet was quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. But here, there is no case of any repayment, so this authority has no application to the facts of the instant case.
(7) Learned counsel for petitioners has placed reliance on decision of Apex Court in Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar vs. State of M.P. (2002) 5 SCC 371 wherein it has been held that even the words uttered in a quarrel or on the spur of moment, such as “to go and die” cannot be taken to be uttered with mens rea. Hence, no case under Section 306 IPC was made out. In this very case, as per para 14 of the authority, it is very much clear that deceased was found to be under great stress and depression as per plain reading of the suicidal note, and one plausible reason was that deceased was without any -4-
work or avocation and at the same time indulged in drinking, he was a frustrated man.
Here, in the instant case, this authority has no application as in this case deceased committed suicide after a long thought.
(8) Deceased has categorically mentioned in his suicidal note that he was committing suicide due to the acts of named petitioners who are responsible for his death as they were consistently teasing and threatening him. He has written the phone numbers to whom after his death contact can be made. The suicidal note contains the signatures of two witnesses. Though petitioner no.2 could move for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. but it is alleged that she was fully aware of the condition of deceased still she insisted for maintenance of Rs.4,000 per month which was exorbitant.
(9) Though, I am fully agree with the arguments advanced by petitioners’ counsel that taking of legal course cannot be an act of instigation, but other specific and categorical allegations are there in suicidal note of deceased.
(10) Learned counsel for petitioners has further placed reliance on Mahendra Singh and Anr., Gayatribai vs. -5-
State of M.P. 1996 CriLJ 894 in which it has been held that mere allegation of harassment of deceased cannot be said to be an act of abetment.
He also relied on a judgment of Apex Court in S.S.Chheena vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan & Another (Criminal Appeal No.1503 of 2010, arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 6811 of 2009), decided on 12th August, 2010 wherein it has been held that the deceased was undoubtedly hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences which happen in our day-to-day life, he committed suicide, then it cannot be said that he was instigated to commit suicide.
The above authorities are based on different facts and circumstances of the case. In the present case categorical and specific allegations are there and deceased was not a hypersensitive person, whatever he has done, has done after a long thought, and as per suicidal note, it cannot be said that he was suffering from some mental ailment.
(11) Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, and on perusal of suicidal note of deceased, I find prima face a case under Section 306 IPC is made out. So, looking to the above circumstances of the case, I find no ground to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of -6-
this Court under S.482 Cr.P.C. Petition being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed.