1. Purushottam Madankar S/o Kumar Sao Madankar Aged About 44 Years R/o Ward No v. 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Mahasamund, District Mahasamund
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:46678 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 734 of 2025 1. Purushottam Madankar S/o Kumar Sao Madankar Aged About 44 Years R/o Ward No. 14, Beldarpara, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.) 2. Rakesh Madankar S/o Kumar Sao Madankar Aged About 50 Years R/o Ward No. 14, Beldarpara, Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) 3. Rajesh Madankar S/o Kumar Sao Madankar Aged About 50 Years R/o Ward No. 14, Beldarpara, Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Applicants/Accused versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.) 2. Heeramoti Chouhan @ Karuna W/o Late Purushottam Chauhan Aged About 37 Years R/o Ward No. 14, Beldarpara, Mahasamund, District-Mahasamund (C.G.),..(Complainant / Wife of Deceased) ... Respondent(s) For Applicants : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Sr. Advocate assisted For Respondent No.1 For Respondent No.2 : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Govt. Advocate : Mr. Gurudev I Sharan, Advocate by Mr. Arpan Verma, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 11/9/2025 2 1. Applicants have preferred this criminal revision seeking quashment of the orders dated 17.12.2024 and 7.1.2025 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Mahasamund in ST No.77/2024 whereby charges under Section 306 read with Section 34 & 201 of Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Protection of Debtors Act, 1937 are framed against the applicants. 2. Factual matrix of the case, in nutshell, is that in the evening of 19.1.2023 deceased Purushottam Chouhan hanged himself to death in his home. It is alleged that deceased committed suicide due to harassment by the moneylenders. Based on afore allegations, merg was registered and during course of inquiry, a suicide note was seized from the wife of deceased on 4.2.2023 in which reason for committing suicide assigned by deceased was constant torture meted out to him by moneylenders and his inability to repay lending amount. After merg inquiry, crime was registered for offence under Section 306 of IPC and Section 4 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Debtors Act, 1937. Statement of wife of deceased was recorded in which she made allegation against petitioners and other co-accused persons. After filing of charge sheet upon completion of investigation, learned trial Court vide order dated 17.12.2024 framed charges under Sections 306, 34, 201 of IPC and Section 4 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of 3 Debtors Act, 1937 against accused persons including applicants herein. 3. During trial, applicants filed an application under Section 227 of the CrPC seeking discharge from the charges framed. Learned trial Court dismissed said application vide order dated 7.1.2025 observing that prima facie offence under Sections 306, 34, 201 of IPC and Section 4 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Debtors Act, 1937 is made out and fixed the trial for recording of evidence of prosecution. 4. Learned Senior Counsel for applicants contends that necessary ingredients required for constitution of an offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC do not exist in the instant case and, therefore framing of charge under that section by trial Court is untenable. He submits that from perusal of alleged suicide note it can be seen that the deceased has not taken name of present applicants, there is no averment as to the role played by present applicants and even there is nothing on record to suggest that the applicant had abetted the commission of suicide. Essential ingredients for constituting an offence under Section 306 of IPC are abetment and intention to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide, which are missing in the present case. He next contended that in the entire charge sheet there is no material to frame charges against applicants for the 4 alleged offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC or
Facts
Section 4 of the Act of 1937 and as such, learned trial Court committed manifest illegality in framing the charges against applicants. Even if the whole version of the prosecution is taken as it is, no offence is made out against applicants. He next contended that co-accused Shashank Jain and Rakesh Jain, who were also arraigned as accused in the charge sheet along with present applicants, have preferred a criminal revision bearing CRR No.228/2025 before this Court against order framing of charge against them for the offence under Sections 306, 34, 201of IPC Section 4 of the Act of 1937; the same has been allowed and consequently, charge for the offence under Sections 306/34, 201 of IPC and Section 4 of the Act of 1937 has been quashed. Since the case of applicants herein is similar to the case of aforementioned accused persons, therefore, applicants seek invocation of principle of parity and quashment of charges levelled against them.
Legal Reasoning
Hence, in the considered opinion of this Court, prima facie the ingredients necessary for attracting the offence under Section 306, 34 of IPC are conspicuously missing in this case and learned trial Court committed a mistake of law in framing charge against applicants herein for offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC and the same is liable to be set aside. 16. Considering that primary ingredients of abetment itself could not be established against applicants from the material available in charge sheet, the applicability of Section 201 of IPC and Section 4 of the Act of 1937, does not arise. Therefore, charges under aforementioned sections framed against applicants are liable to be quashed. 12 17. From perusal of documents filed along with this revision, it is appearing that accused No.5-Shashank Jain and accused No.6-Rakesh Jain in the charge sheet, have preferred a criminal revision against framing of charges as well as rejection of application filed under Section 227 of CrPC for their discharge, which came to be registered as Criminal Revision No.228/2025 (Shashank Jain & anr vs State of CG & anr). This criminal revision was allowed by the Coordinate Bench vide order dated 7.5.2025 observing that even if entire material on record is accepted as correct and true on their face value, no prima facie case for framing of charge for the offence under Section 306/34, 201 of IPC and Section 4 of the Act of 1937 are made out against petitioners therein. Relevant paragraphs of order dated 7.5.2025 are extracted below for ready reference:- “1. The present criminal revision under Section 438 read with Section 442 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short “BNSS, 2023”) has been filed by the petitioners Shashank Jain @ Raja and Rakesh Jain, against the order dated 17-12-2024, passed by learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Mahasamund, in Sessions Case No.77/2024, whereby the charge under Sections 306 read with Section 34 and 201 of IPC and Section 4 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Debtors Act, 1937, have been framed against the petitioners. The order dated 07-01-2025 (Annexure A-4) passed by the learned 13 trial court is also under challenge in the present petition, whereby the application under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioners has been rejected. 11. In the light of the aforementioned legal proposition, I have examined the facts of the present case to find out whether the allegations made in the case against the petitioner, prima facie, constitute the alleged offence or the allegations are so improbable that a prudent man would not arise at the conclusion that there is sufficient ground to proceed with the complaint. In the present case, on 20-01-2023, merg was intimated by the wife of the deceased about commission of suicide due to harassment for the reason of the borrowed amount. At that time, she had not alleged the names of the petitioners. On 04- 02- 2023, the wife of the deceased produced a suicidal note to the police along with the documents of the specimen writing of the deceased. In the said suicidal note, there is no name of any accused persons, and it is alleged in the suicidal note that the moneylenders harass him and he is unable to fulfill their demands, the moneylenders are harassing his entire family, and his neighbour has taken possession of his house, his wife is having knowledge of the entire transaction and the names of the accused persons. The FIR was registered on 18- 05-2023, against unknown persons. From the statement of Heeramoti @ Karuna, wife of the deceased, it appears that the deceased was indebted to a huge amount borrowed from various persons. On 19-01-2023, her husband instructed her to give 14 the amount of Rs. 3,000/- to the bank employee. She disclosed in her statement about various loans obtained by her husband from various persons and transactions of cheques. It is alleged that despite repayment of the amount of the loan, the persons from whom her husband had taken the loan are pressuring him for payment of extra interest and harassing him continuously, for which her husband has committed suicide. No specific instance of any demand or harassment by the present petitioners has been levelled by the wife of the deceased. From the statement of Smt. Badan Chauhan, Vinod Chauhan, Rohit Kumar Chauhan, Shiv Kumar Rajput, Pushpa Sagar Tandi, Ghanshyam Gwal, and other witnesses, it also reflects that the deceased was indebted to various persons and could not repay his debt. There is no material in the charge sheet against the petitioners that they have harassed the deceased in the close proximity of his death or any harassment given by them to the deceased. Even, they have not been named in the suicidal note. 17. From the above settled legal proposition, it is quite clear that to bring the case within the ambit of “abetment” under Section 107 of the IPC, there has to be material/evidence with regard to instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid on the part of the petitioners/accused persons. For the purpose of framing of charge under Section 306 of the IPC, there has to be material with regard to the positive act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on 15 the part of the accused, which led to the person committing suicide, framing of charge under Section 306 of the IPC is not sustainable. 18. In the present case, the contents of the FIR as well as the suicidal note left by the deceased indicate that the deceased committed suicide, fed up with the act of the moneylenders of not repaying the loan amount and interest given by them. Whether the allegation made in the FIR and the suicidal note is sufficient for the offence of Section 107 and 306 of the IPC? The answer is in negative for the reason that in the suicidal note, there is no allegation to the effect that the present petitioners had instigated the deceased to do the particular thing or they intentionally abetted the deceased to commit suicide. Further, there is no name of the present petitioners who have also given the loan to the deceased or pressurised him for its repayment. There is no allegation of conspiracy in the FIR or suicidal note, nor does it indicate that there was continuous harassment or torture by the present petitioners or that they intended the deceased to commit suicide or instigated him to commit suicide. The facts mentioned in the suicide note are not sufficient to draw a presumption that the present petitioners abetted the suicide. Further, the statement of the wife of the deceased, recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. did not disclose any act or omission of the present petitioners that would amount to instigating the deceased to commit suicide. The act of non-repayment of the borrowed amount, individually or collectively, does not fall within the purview of abetment. Even presuming that 16 the deceased was upset on account of non- repayment of the borrowed amount and interest, it does not amount to instigation or abetment to commit suicide as defined under Section 107 of the IPC. Instead of taking his legal and legitimate action, the deceased adopted an escapist course of committing suicide. It is settled law that if the instigation for the commission of suicide is prima facie not established by the prosecution, the charge under Section 306 of the IPC cannot be framed. 24.In the present case, there is no proximate link between the death of the deceased and any act of the petitioners. In the suicidal note, an omnibus allegation has been levelled that he was fed up with the demands made by the moneylenders. The deceased was indebted to various persons and was not in a position to repay them. The pressure is quite obvious, but it does not mean that the petitioners have abetted him or instigated him to commit suicide. The allegations against the present petitioners are not sufficient to frame charge for the offence of Section 306 of the IPC against them. 25.So far as the charge of Section 201 of the IPC is concerned, it is alleged that the petitioners have not provided complete information with respect to loan transaction between them and the deceased, and thereby, they are liable to be punished for the offence of Section 201 of the IPC. Section 201 of the IPC provides for punishment for causing the disappearance of evidence of an offence or giving false information to screen an offender. From perusal of the documents annexed with the charge sheet, it 17 reflects that the notice under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. has been issued to the petitioner No. 1 Shashank Jain @ Raja on 24-07-2024 and to petitioner No. 2 Rakesh Jain, on 30-08-2024, and they replied all the notices and disclosed the information that they had in their knowledge or possession. It further reflects that there is lack of sufficient material to frame the charge for the offence under Section 201 of the IPC. 26. Likewise, for the offence of Section 4 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Debtors Act, 1937, provides that whoever molests, or abets the molestation of, any debtor for the recovery of a debt owed by him to his creditor shall be punishable with simple imprisonment which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both. As has been discussed above, there is no instance alleged with respect to molestation by the petitioners to the deceased for recovery of any debt, except for general and omnibus allegations. Therefore, no sufficient material against the petitioners to frame charge for the offence of Section 4 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Debtors Act, 1937. 27. Considering and examining the entire material available on record as absolutely correct and true on their face value, no prima facie case for framing of charge for the offence under Sections 306/34 and 201 of IPC and Section 4 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Debtors Act, 1937, are made out against the petitioners Shashank Jain @ Raja and Rakesh Jain as there is no nexus and proximity with the conduct and behaviour of the petitioners with that 18 of the suicide committed by the deceased Purushottam @ Rajesh Chauhan. The order framing charge against the present petitioners is erroneous and unsustainable. It would be a travesty of justice to compel the petitioners to face a criminal trial without any credible material whatsoever.” 18. Accordingly, this criminal revision is allowed. Order dated 17.12.2024 framing charges under Section 306/34 and 201 of the IPC and Section 4 of the Act of 1937 against the a Shashank Jain @ Raja and Rakesh Jain is hereby set aside. Applicants are discharged from the alleged offences. It is made clear that trial shall continue in respect of remaining co- accused persons. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge roshan/-
Arguments
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has fairly admitted parity of the case of applicants with the case of co- accused Shashank Jain @ Raja and Rakesh Jain, whose similar petition has been allowed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 7.5.2025. 5 6. I have heard learned counsel for respective parties and perused the documents filed along with revision. 7. Case of the prosecution is that the complainant lodged written complainant in concerned police station mentioning that her husband had borrowed money from certain persons including moneylenders namely Rajesh Mandakar, Rakesh Madankar, Golu Madankar, Ravi Soni, Raja alias Shashank Jain and Rakesh Jain, these persons were harassing her husband for recovery of borrowed money, therefore, being fed-up of said harassment, her husband had committed suicide by hanging himself in house. On the basis of above said allegations, respondent Police registered the offence under Crime No.195/2023 against aforementioned persons and after investigation, the charge sheet was filed against them. 8. Along with charge sheet, police had also enclosed suicide note of deceased seized during inquiry. In this suicide note, the deceased had simply mentioned that he is fed-up with the moneylenders by paying them interest and therefore he is committing suicide as now he is unable to fulfill their demands. It is also mentioned in suicide note that he is also fed-up with a lady residing in his neighbour, who has been in possession of his house. In the suicide note the deceased has no where mentioned names of applicant or co-accused persons. Thus, it can be seen that applicants are neither 6 specifically named in alleged suicide note nor any specific role is attributed to them. 9. The necessary ingredients for the offence under Section 306 of IPC was considered in the case of M. Arjunan vs State, reported in (2019) 3 SCC 315, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus :- "7. The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 IPC are: (i) the abetment; (ii) the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased by using abusive language will not, by itself, constitute the abetment of suicide. There should be evidence capable of suggesting that the accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Unless the ingredients of instigation/abetment to commit suicide are satisfied the accused cannot be convicted under Section 306 IPC." 10. In case of Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal, reported in (2010) 1 SCC 707, Hon’ble Supreme Court, while dealing with a case of abetment of suicide discussed as to when an offence under Section 306 of IPC would be attracted and held thus: “12. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306 IPC, the court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and harassment 7 meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable. 13. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 IPC there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC.” 11. In case of State of Kerala vs S. Unnikrishnan Nair, reported in 2015 AIR SCW 4814, Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed thus:- “18.Coming to the case at hand, as we have stated earlier, the suicide note really does not state about any continuous conduct of harassment and, in any case, the facts and circumstances are quite different. In such a situation, we are disposed to think that the High Court is justified in quashing the proceeding, for 8 it is an accepted position in law that where no prima facie case is made out against the accused, then the High Court is obliged in law to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code and quash the proceedings. [See V.P. Shrivastava v. Indian Explosives Limited and others, (2010) 10 SCC 361]" 12. Recently, in case of Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda and ors vs State of Gujarat, reported in (2025) 2 SCC 116 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:- “17.Section 306 of the IPC penalizes those who abet the act of suicide by another. For a person to be charged under this section, the prosecution must establish that the accused contributed to the act of suicide by the deceased. This involvement must satisfy one of the three conditions outlined in Section 107 of the IPC. These conditions include the accused instigated or encouraged the individual to commit suicide, conspiring with others to ensure that the act was carried out, or engaging in conduct (or neglecting to act) that directly led to the person taking his/her own life.” 13. What transpires from above-mentioned decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court is that in order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 of IPC, there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. It needs to 9 be gathered from the circumstances of a particular case whether the accused had by his acts and by his continuous course of conduct created such a situation as a consequence of which the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide. The presence of mens rea is the necessary concomitant of instigation. 14. The scope of interference and exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC at a stage when charge had been framed, is well settled, that at the stage of framing of a charge, the Court is concerned not with the proof of the allegation rather it has to focus on the material and form an opinion whether there is strong suspicion that the accused has committed an offence, which if put to trial, could prove his guilt. The framing of charge is not a stage, at which stage final test of guilt is to be applied. Mini trial is not permissible at this stage. In case of Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander, reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460, Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the principles to be borne in mind for proper exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 or 482 CrPC, as the case may be, particularly in the context of quashing of charge. The principles in Amit Kapoor's case (supra) were recently quoted with approval in case of Manendra Prasad Tiwari v. Amit Kumar Tiwari & another, reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1057. One of the principles on which revisional jurisdiction 10 can be exercised is that if the allegations are patently so absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person can ever reach such a conclusion and where the basic ingredients of a criminal offence are not satisfied then the Court may interfere. Relevant principles culled out by Hon'ble Supreme Court in aforementioned decision read thus:- “27.2. The Court should apply the test as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made from the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith prima facie establish the offence or not. If the allegations are so patently absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person can ever reach such a conclusion and where the basic ingredients of a criminal offence are not satisfied then the Court may interfere. xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx 27.3. The High Court should not unduly interfere. No meticulous examination of the evidence is needed for considering whether the case would end in conviction or not at the stage of framing of charge or quashing of charge. xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx 27.9. Another very significant caution that the courts have to observe is that it cannot examine the facts, evidence and materials on record to determine whether there is sufficient material on the basis of which the case would end in a conviction; the Court is concerned primarily with the allegations taken as a whole whether they will constitute an offence and, if so, is it an abuse of the process of court leading to injustice. xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx 27.15. Coupled with any or all of the above, where the Court finds that it would amount to abuse of process of the Code or that the interest of justice favours, otherwise it may quash the charge. The power is to be exercised ex debito justitiae i.e. to do real and substantial justice for administration of which alone, the courts exist.” 11 15. Testing the facts of present case on the touchstone of law discussed above, I do not find that there is any allegation against present applicants in the entire material available in charge sheet alleging them of such a conduct that the deceased was compelled to commit suicide due to act of applicants. In fact, the suicide note is silent about who are responsible for the suicide committed by deceased. Suicide note, refer to some unknown moneylenders who inspite of returning their money were threatening and causing harassment to deceased and he is also fed-up with a lady residing in neighbour. There is no clarity about the persons who are allegedly responsible for the suicide of the deceased.