^c5 APPLICANTS HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Cr. M.P. No. 91/2008 1, AkhUesh Tiwad S/o Shri Ramkrashn Tiwari aged about 36 years. 2. Alok Tiwad S/o Shri Ramkrishn Tiwad aged about 34 years. Bofh R/o Bajar Para, Bhaaupratppur, P.S. Bhaaupratappur, Tahsil Bhaiiupratappur, District Kaaker C,G. VERSUS NON-APPLICANT The State of Chhattisgarh, through P.S. Bhanupratappur C,G, APPyCATIQN UNDER SBCTION 482 OP THB CODB OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. (SB :Hon*ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present: Shri R.K. Jain, Advocate for the applicants. Shri N. Naha Ray, P.L. forthe State/non-applicant ORAL- ORDER (Passed on 21 /08/2008) 1, This petition is for quashnient of crimiaal case No, 530/07 pendiag before fh.e Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhanupratappur/ District Kaaker on fhe ground fhat prosecution has not adduced aay sufl&cient material for framiag fhe charge puaishable uiider Section 306/34 ofthe Indiaa Penal Code. 2, Shri R,K. Jam Advocate for ttie appUcaats and Shri N. Naha Ray, P.L, for ftie State/non-appUcaiit are heard. 3, Copy of charge-sheet perused. It is argued on behalf of the applicaat fhat deceased Bhagwaat Rao Khaadait was torustee of Gayatd Pragya Saasthaa. On 30/4/2007 he was abused aiid assaulted by appUcaats aad some other person. On 4/5/07 he corainitted suicide. There is no nexus between fhe act offhe applicaat aad fhe commission offhe suicide by the deceased. AppUcaats have not mstigated or abated for commission ofthe suicide. - 2- 4. ReUaace to.as been placed on behalf of the applicaat mi fhe matter ofSagju alias Saniav SitUEfa Senmur v. 8tae of M.P1. reported m 2002(21 C.G.L.J. 128 where m fhe Honyble Apex Court held fhat:- "Instigating a persou to do a thing -Held aiastigate2? denotes iacitement or urgiag to do some drastic or inadvisable action or to stunulate or iacite,-presence of laens rea is fhe necessaiy concomitaat for mstigation Words uttered ia a quarrel or on the spur of inonient, such as ^to go aiid die^ caiuiot be taken to be uttered wifh. mens rea-Quarrel takiag place betiveen appellant aad deceased ia which appeUaat was said to have told fhe deceased ato go aad die" Deceased found dead two days later- Held, suicide was not proxiinate to the quarrel fhough fhe deceased was naoied m fhe suicide note-Hence suicide was not the direct result of fhe quarrel when the appeUaat used abusive laiiguage aad told the deceased to go and die". 5, Learaed Counsel for fhe non-appUcaat has subndtted fhat prosecution has coUected suf&cient material for fi-aming of the chaj^e, fherefore, at fhis stage court is reqziired to see fhe prima facie case meticulous scrutiny of the evidence is not required. Even serious doubt about fhe commission of fhe offence is sufficient for fmming ofthe charge. 6, Copy of fhe charge-sheet reveals that deceased Bhagwaat Rao Khaadait was workmg/posted as trustee in Gayatd Pragya Sansfhiaii. They blaoied over his character, assaulted aad coiapelled Mm not to enter ui fhe Gayatri Pragya Saasffaaa, Due to fhe said act he was depressed aad comLmiitfeed suicide on 4/5/2007. In fhe case of conimission ofsuicide fhis Court ia the matter of Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhatti^Mrh2 reported ia (2001) 9 SCC page 618:, observed as under:- "Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do aan acf?. To satisfy fhe requiremient of iastigation fhough it is not necessaxy fhat actual words niust be sued to fhat effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily aad specificaUy be suggestive of fhe consequence. Yet a reasonable certamty to incite fhe consequence must be capable ofbeiag spelt ouf, ' 2002(2) C.Q.L.J. 128 2 (2001)98cc page618 i/fs-:\ I 1 ';'^\:^%A^*^^'^ ® -J' 7. In case of Vk Prakash Sharma v. AnU Kumsur A<@awal attd anoth^r reported in (200713 SCC (<3ri.i 37033, Apex Court has held fhat where atlegations coataiiied in complaiat petition even tf given face value aad taken to be correct ia its entirely do not disclose an offence fhen flie coniplaiat caa be quashed. 8, In ttie iastaat case accordiag to inaterial collected by the prosecution deceased was assaulted by the appUcaat and ofher co-accused, They blamed over ftie character of fhe deceased aad compelled Tiini not to enter m the Gayatd Pragya Sansfhaa for which he was dedicated aad as a result of act of fhe appUcaat he committed suicide, In case of quashment of the criminal proceedmg fhe Court was required to see as to whether atlegation made ia complauit or poUce report is if admitted ia its face value then even no conviction would be possible, In the iastaat case if same test is appUed then fhe appUcaats inay be safely convicted under Section 306/34 of fhe Indian Penal Code. Consequently, the continuaace of proceediiig is not abuse of the process of the Court aad fhe charge fraaied agaiast fhe applicaat is not groundless, 9, The petition is Uable to be dismissed aad it te hercby dismissed. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge ! 2007)3 SCC(Cri.j 3703