Nishu Kumar Gupta @ Nishu Gupta v. 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 2318 of 2016 Nishu Kumar Gupta @ Nishu Gupta Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Mrs. Reena Devi -------- ..... … Petitioners ..... … Opposite Parties
Legal Reasoning
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioner ------ : : : ------ 06/ 31.01.2024 Earlier notice was issued to the O.P. No. 2, which was Mrs. Neeta Krishna, Advocate. Mr. Jay Shankar Tiwary, Advocate Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl.P.P. For the State effected. Subsequently, it was pointed out that the O.P. No. 2 has left for his heavenly abode, pursuant to that the O.P. No. 2 was substituted by his wife and notice was issued to the substituted O.P. No. 2 and the said notice has also been validly effected, in spite of that nobody has responded on behalf of the O.P. No. 2 that’s why this petition is being heard on merits in absence of O.P. No. 2. 2. Heard Mrs. Neeta Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mrs. Priya Shrestha, learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the O.P. No. 2. 3. This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 15.07.2016, by which, cognizance for the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, in connection with Katras P.S. Case No. 269 of 2015 corresponding to G.R. No. 4732 of 2015, pending in the court of learned S.D.J.M., Dhanbad. 4. The FIR was lodged alleging therein that the informant Manoj Kumar Gupta, who happens to be the father of the deceased Gunjeeta Kumari, gave fardbeyan before A.S.I. of Bariatu Police Station in the unit of Dr. Vinod Kumar, RIMS, Ranchi that the deceased had love affairs with Nishu Kumar Gupta and when he refused to marry with her then on 19.06.2015 at 7.00 A.M., she entered inside the bathroom for taking bath and poured kerosene oil on her body and set herself on fire. In burnt condition she was shifted to Choudhary Nursing Home, Bokaro General Hospital and subsequently to RIMS, Ranchi, where she died on 02.07.2015 at 9.00 P.M. in Ranchi. 5. Mrs. Neeta Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the alleged occurrence took place on 19.06.2015 -2- and the deceased died on 02.07.2015 i.e. after 13 days. She submits that the FIR was lodged on 03.09.2015. She further submits that during the lifetime of the deceased, the FIR was not registered and allegations are made that since this petitioner has not married with the deceased, she has burnt herself. She further submits that the learned court has taken the cognizance against the petitioner under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. She draws the attention of the court to Annexure-4, which is a document issued by the doctor of Bokaro General Hospital, Bokaro, wherein the doctor has recorded that the patient has stated that the said occurrence took place while she was cooking in the kitchen, the burn injuries are also described therein. She submits that in view of that even the allegations are accepting to be true of denying the marriage, the abatement is not made out and to buttress her argument, she relied in the case of Madan Mohan Singh Versus State of Gujarat & Anr., reported in (2010) 8 SCC 628. On these grounds, she submits that the case has maliciously been filed against the petitioner in view of that entire criminal proceeding may kindly be quashed. 6. Mrs. Priya Shrestha, learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State submits that the chargesheet is there, in view of that the learned court has been pleased to take cognizance against the petitioner and in view of that the case is made out. 7. In the FIR, allegations are made that this petitioner has not married with the deceased in view of that she has committed suicide. The said occurrence is said to be taken place on 19.06.2015 and the FIR was registered on 03.09.2015 as Katras P.S. Case No. 269 of 2015. Further Annexure-4 is the document in the handwriting of the doctor of Bokaro General Hospital, Bokaro, wherein the doctor has recorded that the patient / deceased has stated that the said occurrence took place while she was cooking in the kitchen, the burn injuries are also described therein. Thus, it is crystal clear that the patient/deceased herself has not stated against the petitioner. 8. In the case of Madan Mohan Singh (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para-13, it has been held as under:- "9. It is absurd to even think that a superior officer like the appellant would intend to bring about suicide of his driver and, therefore, abet the offence. In fact, there is no nexus between the so-called suicide (if at all it is one for which -3-
Decision
also there is no material on record) and any of the alleged acts on the part of the appellant. There is no proximity either. In the prosecution under Section 306 IPC, much more material is required. The courts have to be extremely careful as the main person is not available for cross-examination by the appellant accused. Unless, therefore, there is specific allegation and material of definite nature (not imaginary or inferential one), it would be hazardous to ask the appellant-accused to face the trial. A is not exactly a pleasant criminal experience. The person like the appellant in the present case who is serving in a responsible post would certainly suffer great prejudice, were he to face prosecution on absurd allegations of irrelevant nature. In the similar circumstances, as reported in Netai Dutta v. State of W.B., 2005 (2) East Cr C 1 (SC) 2005 (2) SCC 659, this Court had quashed the proceedings initiated against the accused." In view of the above and on a plain reading of Section 306 trial 9. of the Indian Penal Code, it is crystal clear that the said section will be attracted only if anybody instigated for such suicide. Mere refusal of marry with the deceased, no circumstance could come under the definition of abetment. 10. It is well settled that in order to make out a case, to instigate any person to commit suicide, it is to be established that the victim committed suicide due to that, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Wazir Chand Versus State of Haryana, reported in AIR 1989 SC 370. 11. In view of the above, to allow the proceeding to continue will amount to an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 15.07.2016, by which, cognizance for the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, in connection with Katras P.S. Case No. 269 of 2015 corresponding to G.R. No. 4732 of 2015, pending in the court of learned S.D.J.M., Dhanbad, are hereby, quashed. 12. This petition is allowed and disposed of. Amitesh/- (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)