1. Sourav Jalan @ Saurav Jalan aged about 31 years, s/o Shyam Kumar Jalan v. 2. Tajmul Ansari s/o Asimuddin Ansari, president of village Kedal Opposite Parties Meshra P.O
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.1671 of 2021 ------ 1. Sourav Jalan @ Saurav Jalan aged about 31 years, s/o Shyam Kumar Jalan. 2. Shyam Kumar Jalan @ Shyam Jalan aged about 60 years, s/o Late Kedar Jalan Both resident of Jalan Road P.O P.S. Kotwali District- Ranchi. … Petitioners 1. The State of Jharkhand Versus 2. Tajmul Ansari s/o Asimuddin Ansari, president of village Kedal Opposite Parties Meshra P.O. P.S. Sadar District- Ranchi … For the Petitioners For the State
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Sidhartha Roy, Advocate : Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashistha, Spl. P.P. ------ ------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash and set aside the entire criminal proceedings as well as the order dated 19.10.2020 passed by learned A.C.J.M., Ranchi by which cognizance has been taken inter alia against the petitioners in connection with Sadar P.S. Case No.39 of 2013 corresponding to G.R. No.682 of 2013 which is now pending in the court of learned A.C.J.M., Ranchi. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the only allegation against the petitioners is that the co-accused Ishwar Prasad @ Binay Singh entered into an agreement to exchange the land with the deceased but prior to that Ishwar Prasad sold the concerned land to the petitioner No.2 and 1 Cr. M.P. No.1671 of 2021 consequent upon such sale, mutation of the land was also done in favour of the petitioner No.2 and the only allegation against the petitioner No.1 is that he is the son of the petitioner No.2. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners draws the attention of this Court towards the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Kishori Lal vs. State of M.P. reported in 2007 3 JLJ 148 paragraph- 7 of which read as under:- “7.In cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. The mere fact that the husband treated the deceased-wife with cruelty is not enough. [See Mahinder Singh v. State of M.P., (1995 AIR SCW 4570)]. Merely on the allegation of harassment conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable. There is ample evidence on record that the deceased was disturbed because she had not given birth to any child. PWs. 8, 10, and 11 have categorically stated that the deceased was disappointed due to the said fact and her failure to beget a child and she was upset due to this.” and submits that in a case of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. In this respect, learned counsel for the petitioners also relies upon the judgment of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Mahavir Mahto @ Mahabir Mahto & Others vs. State of Jharkhand & Another reported in 2014 2 JLJR 626 wherein the co-ordinate Bench of this Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of M. Mohan vs. State Represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police reported in (2011) 3 SCC 626 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that there should be clear mens rea to commit offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. It is next submitted that in the absence of any overt and covert act attributed to the petitioners as admittedly the land in question was sold and the 2 Cr. M.P. No.1671 of 2021 mutation was also done in favour of the petitioners before the deceased came into the picture through negotiation for exchange of the land with the co- accused Ishwar Prasad, hence, even if the allegations made in the F.I.R, case- diary and charge-sheet are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioners. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this Cr.M.P. be allowed. 6. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioners. 7. 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 it is a settled principle of law that abetment as envisaged under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding that person in doing a thing which led to commission of suicide and more active role which can be described as instigating or aiding in doing of a thing is required before a person can be said to be committing the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Randhir Singh & Another vs. State of Punjab reported in (2004) 13 SCC 129. 8. Now, coming to the facts of the case, there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioners except that prior to an arrangement between the co- accused Ishwar Prasad @ Binay Singh and the deceased for exchange of land, Iswhar Prasad sold the land to the petitioner No.2 and petitioner No.1 is the son of the petitioner No.2. There is no allegation against the deceased of having ever approached the petitioners. 3 Cr. M.P. No.1671 of 2021 9. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that even if the allegations made in the F.I.R., case-diary and charge-sheet are taken to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out qua the petitioners. 10. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceedings as well as the order dated 19.10.2020 passed by learned A.C.J.M., Ranchi by which cognizance has been taken inter alia against the petitioners in connection with Sadar P.S. Case No.39 of 2013 corresponding to G.R. No.682 of 2013 which is now pending in the court of learned A.C.J.M., Ranchi, is quashed and set aside qua the petitioners only. 11.
Decision
In the result, this Cr.M.P. stands allowed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 22nd of April, 2024 AFR/ Animesh-Saroj 4 Cr. M.P. No.1671 of 2021