Nirmal Singh v. Opp. Party

Heard the parties. This interlocutory application has been filed with the prayer for early hearing of this criminal miscellaneous petition.

3. Since, hearing of this criminal miscellaneous petition is taken up today, hence, this interlocutory application is disposed of being infructuous. Cr.M.P. No. 498 of 2026 (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)

2. Heard the parties. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., 2023 with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the proceeding in connection with S.T. No. 22 of 2026, arising out of Namkum P.S. Case No. 128 of 2024, corresponding to G.R. No. 1 Cr.M.P. No.498 of 2026 (2026:JHHC:17430) 3519 of 2025 as well as the order dated 12.11.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-IX, Ranchi, whereby and where under, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-IX, Ranchi has found prima facie case for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case is next fixed to 02.07.2026 before the Additional Judicial Commissioner- XII, Ranchi for consideration of framing of charge.

4. The brief fact of the case is that though the case was instituted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code but during the course of investigation, it was found that Hawaldar Operator Karnail Singh has committed suicide and the petitioner abetted the commission of suicide by playing an active role by the act of instigation.

5. Police during the investigation of the case found that the petitioner has committed the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and submitted charge sheet for having committed the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and basing upon the same, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-IX, Ranchi has taken cognizance. The case has been committed to the Court of Sessions and the case is pending for consideration of framing of charge.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mahendra Awase vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2025 INSC 2 Cr.M.P. No.498 of 2026 (2026:JHHC:17430) 76 and submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has discussed the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code in paragraph no.16 of the said judgment.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Laxmi Das vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. reported in 2025 INSC 86 and submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in paragraph no. 8 of the said judgment has dealt with the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Geeta vs. The State of Karnataka reported in 2025 INSC 1089 and submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in paragraph no. 19 therein, relied upon its own judgment in the case of Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. reported in (2010) 8 SCC 628 wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India discussed the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code for which specific abetment as contemplated under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code on the part of the accused with an intention to bring about the suicide of the person concerned as a result of abetment is required.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Nipun Aneja 3 Cr.M.P. No.498 of 2026 (2026:JHHC:17430) & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2025 INSC 767 and submits that in that case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has relied upon its own judgment in the case of Ude Singh & Ors. vs. State of Haryana reported in (2019) 17 SCC 301 wherein, it was held that in order to convict an accused under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, the state of mind to commit a particular crime must be visible with regard to determining the culpability. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the police has most perfunctorily conducted the investigation and the name of the petitioner transpired much later during the investigation of the case. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no any proximate or live link between the alleged conduct of the petitioner and the act of suicide. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the deceased has not left any suicide note blaming the petitioner for his death. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for by the petitioner in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed.

10. Learned Spl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner made in this criminal miscellaneous petition and submits that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner has abetted commission of suicide by Karnail Singh and if the allegation made in the case diary and the charge sheet are considered to be true in their entirety then the offence punishable under Section 306 of the 4 Cr.M.P. No.498 of 2026 (2026:JHHC:17430) Indian Penal Code is squarely made out. It is also submitted that it is not a sine qua non that in every case of suicide, the deceased person must leave a suicidal note; so, the contention of the petitioner regarding the suicidal note is a frivolous one. It is next submitted by learned Spl. P.P. that the investigation is already over and the case after commitment to the Court of Sessions is fixed for consideration of the framing of charge. Under such circumstances, at this belated stage, it is fit and proper for the learned Sessions Court to consider framing of charge instead of quashing the entire criminal proceeding at this stage by conducting a mini trial which is not permissible in exercise of the power under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. It is lastly submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed.

11. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph no.7 in the case of Iqbal @ Bala and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in (2023) 8 SCC 734 which reads as under:- “7. It is relevant to note that the victim has not furnished any information in regard to the date and time of the commission of the alleged offence. At the same time, we also take notice of the fact that the investigation has been completed and charge-sheet is ready to be filed. Although the allegations levelled in the FIR do not inspire any confidence more particularly in the absence of any specific date, time, etc. of the alleged offences, yet we are of the view that the appellants should prefer discharge application 5 Cr.M.P. No.498 of 2026 (2026:JHHC:17430) before the trial court under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). We say so because even according to the State, the investigation is over and charge- sheet is ready to be filed before the competent court. In such circumstances, the trial court should be allowed to look into the materials which the investigating officer might have collected forming part of the charge-sheet. If any such discharge application is filed, the trial court shall look into the materials and take a call whether any case for discharge is made out or not.” wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India was of the view that where charge sheet is ready to be filed, the accused persons should prefer discharge application before the learned trial court under Section 227 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

12. Now coming to the facts of the case, the undisputed fact remains that the police during the investigation of the case found the allegation against the petitioner for having committed the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code to be true and submitted charge sheet against the petitioner and basing upon the same the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-IX, Ranchi has taken cognizance. Though a vague plea was raised by the petitioner that the police conducted the investigation in a perfunctory manner but no specific allegation has been made, as to what shortcoming was there in conducting the investigation by the police. The case is already fixed by the learned Sessions Court for consideration of framing of charge.

13. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the prayer as prayed for by the petitioner is to be acceded to in exercise of the power under 6 Cr.M.P. No.498 of 2026 (2026:JHHC:17430) Section 528 of B.N.S.S., 2023 and it is a fit case where the learned Sessions Judge be given an opportunity to take a call in the matter for framing of charge against the accused persons.

14. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit is dismissed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 16th June, 2026 AFR/Gunjan/- Uploaded on 17/06/2026 7 Cr.M.P. No.498 of 2026