K.V. Viswanathan, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The present appeal calls in question the judgment and order dated 25.07.2023 in Criminal Revision No. 1142 of 2023 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore. By the said judgment, the High Court declined the prayer of the appellant to discharge him from the offences punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (‘ IPC ’ for short) and maintained the charges as framed by the Trial Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by babita pandey Date: 2025.01.17 16:17:32 IST Reason: Court on 28.02.2023.

1 Brief Facts:

3. On 31.12.2022 a First Information Report was registered at PS Maingaon on the information of Dharmendra. The informant stated that his brother Bhagwan Singh was residing near his house along with his son Ranjeet Chauhan; that on 11.10.2022 Ranjeet had left home around 10 AM on his Motorcycle to go to the farm; that when he did not return home till around 2 PM, he called him, but he got no response; that his nephews - Shivam Chauhan and Kuldeep Chauhan started searching for Ranjeet and while searching they went towards Rangaon. There they found a Motorcycle parked on the side of the road and when they searched nearby, around 6 PM in the evening, they found Ranjeet hanging on a rope noose from a tree on the bank of Borgaon drain about 100 mtrs. away from the Motorcycle. The informant further stated that he informed Bhagwan Singh - father of Ranjeet Singh.

4. That during inquest under Section 174 Cr.P.C, a written suicide- note and a mobile were found. The suicide-note mentioned about the deceased being harassed by the appellant - Mahendra Awase. 2 Statements of witnesses were recorded. A chargesheet came to be filed on 21.01.2023. The chargesheet mentioned that the appellant had committed offences punishable under Section 306 of the IPC.

5. The suicide note reads as under:-

6. It further transpires that the forensic laboratory had confirmed certain audio recordings of the conversation between the deceased and the appellant. Transcripts of the conversation were also produced.

7. The transcripts are extracted hereinbelow, as is available from the Panchnama:-

8. The appellant prayed for discharge from the proceedings. However, based on the material available, on 28.02.2023, the First Additional Sessions Judge, Khargone framed the following charges.

“On 11.10.2022 between about 10:00 hrs to 18:00 hrs and before that, you mentally tortured the deceased Ranjit Chauhan at Rangaon Road, on the banks of Borgaon drain, Temla, under District Khargone, Police Station Maingaon, and forced him to commit suicide due to which he committed suicide by hanging himself. Your said act is punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.”

9. Aggrieved by the order framing charge, the appellant approached the High Court by filing a revision but the same has been dismissed by the impugned order. Aggrieved, the appellant is before us.

10. We have heard Shri Pardeep Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Abhimanyu Singh, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the records of the case. 7

11. Section 306 of the IPC reads as under:-

12. Section 107 of the IPC reads as under:-

13. In Swamy Prahaladdas vs. State of M.P. and Another, [1995 Supp (3) SCC 438], the appellant remarked to the deceased that 'go and die' and the deceased thereafter, committed suicide. This Court held that:-

14. In Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of Gujarat and Another , (2010) 8 SCC 628, this Court held that in order to bring out an offence under Section 306 IPC specific abetment as contemplated by Section 107 IPC on the part of the accused with an intention to bring about the suicide of the person concerned as a result of that abetment is required. It was further held that the intention of the accused to aid or to instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a must for attracting Section 306 .

15. In Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal , (2010) 1 SCC 707, this Court held as under:-

In the said case this Court came to the conclusion that there is no evidence and material available on record wherefrom an inference of the appellant- accused having abetted commission of suicide by Seema (the appellant's wife therein) may necessarily be drawn.” 11 Thereafter, this Court in Mohan (supra) held:-

Strangely, the FIR has also been lodged after a delay of two months and twenty days.

20. This Court has, over the last several decades, repeatedly reiterated the higher threshold, mandated by law for Section 306 IPC [Now Section 108 read with Section 45 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023] to be attracted. They however seem to have followed 13 more in the breach. Section 306 IPC appears to be casually and too readily resorted to by the police. While the persons involved in genuine cases where the threshold is met should not be spared, the provision should not be deployed against individuals, only to assuage the immediate feelings of the distraught family of the deceased. The conduct of the proposed accused and the deceased, their interactions and conversations preceding the unfortunate death of the deceased should be approached from a practical point of view and not divorced from day-to-day realities of life. Hyperboles employed in exchanges should not, without anything more, be glorified as an instigation to commit suicide. It is time the investigating agencies are sensitised to the law laid down by this Court under Section 306 so that persons are not subjected to the abuse of process of a totally untenable prosecution. The trial courts also should exercise great caution and circumspection and should not adopt a play it safe syndrome by mechanically framing charges, even if the investigating agencies in a given case have shown utter disregard for the ingredients of Section

21. For the above reasons, we hold that the case against the appellant is groundless for framing of a charge under Section 306 . Hence, we discharge the appellant from proceedings in Sessions Case No. 19 of 2023 pending on the file of First Additional Sessions Judge, Khargone District, Mandleshwar and quash and set aside the said proceedings. The appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 25.07.2023 passed by the High Court in Criminal Revision No. 1142 of 2023 is set aside.

………........................J. [ABHAY S. OKA] ……….........................J. [K. V. VISWANATHAN] New Delhi;

17th January, 2025.