High Court

Applicant :- Mohit Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Deeksha Gupta,Siddharth Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants; learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 23.08.2024; cognizance dated 11.09.2024 as well as entire proceedings of Session Trial No. 958 of 2024 (state vs Shailendra verma and others) Case Crime No.0020 of 2023, U/S 306,34,406,419,420 I.P.C. police station- Kotwali Kannauj, District- Kannauj.

3. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that informant's husband (deceased) was employed in Bank of India on contract. The named accused persons committed fraud and tried to implicate the deceased, informant's husband. They started to harass the deceased and on 30.12.2022, the husband of informant (deceased) went with the applicant and he did not return. Subsequently, the deceased was found hanging with mango tree on 01.01.2023. Counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant having no concern with the alleged incident. The F.I.R. was lodged after 13 days of the incident on the presumption. On perusal of F.I.R. and other material evidence, there is no evidence that applicant abetted the deceased to commit suicide and ingredient of Section 306 I.P.C. is not made out. He next submitted that informant was not present at the time of inquest and she was informed with regard to death of her husband by her niece. Prima facie, it is a case of suicide. The applicant is peon in bank and his work is only to assist and accomplish the task assigned to him by his officials and nothing else and deceased was also employee on contractual basis. The learned Magistrate without applying judicial mind summoned the applicant. In support of his submission, counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon para-2 of the judgement of Apex Court in Swamy Prahaladdas Vs. State of M.P. reported in 1995 Supp 3 SCC 438 in which the Court has clearly stated that the appellant is said to have remarked for the deceased to and die and in that case, the Apex Court has not found offence under Section 306 I.P.C. Reliance has also been placed upon para-45 of the judgment of Apex Court in M. Mohan Vs. The State Represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police reported in 2011 3 SCC 626 wherein the Court has held that abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. It is next argued that in view of the aforesaid judgments and evidence collected by the Investigating Officer in the present case, no offence disclosed against the applicant to prosecute him in the present case.

4. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case and submitted that on perusal of F.I.R., it is apparent that on 30.12.2022 deceased went with the applicant, thereafter his body was found hanging with a mango tree. Moreover, a suicidal note has been recovered in which the deceased has stated that on account of torture of the accused persons, he has committed suicide. He next submitted that submission raised by counsel for the applicant is based on factual dispute. The trial court has to examine the same. This Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has no power to examine the factual dispute of the matter.

5. The Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Allauddin Khan Vs. State of Bihar and others reported in (2019) 6 SCC 107 has held in para No.14 as follows:- "14. In our view, the High Court had no jurisdiction to appreciate the evidence of the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.") because whether there are contradictions or/and inconsistencies in the statements of the witnesses is essentially an issue relating to appreciation of evidence and the same can be gone into by the Judicial Magistrate during trial when the entire evidence is adduced by the parties. That stage is yet to come in this case."

6. The Apex Court in Priti Saraf and another Vs. State of NCT of Delhi and Another reported in AIR 2021 SC 1531 has held that: "To exercise powers under Section 482, complaint in its entirety have to be examined on basis of allegation made in complaint/FIR/Charge sheet. High Court at that stage not under an obligation to go into matter or examine its correctness. Whatever appears on face of complaint/FIR/charge sheet to be taken into consideration without any critical examination of same. Offence ought to appear ex facie on complaint/FIR/charge sheet and other documentary evidence, on record. It is thus settled that exercise of inherent power of High Court is an extraordinary power which has to be exercised with great care and circumspection before embarking to scrutinize complaint/FIR/charge sheet in deciding whether case is rarest of rare case, to scuttle prosecution at its inception. Whether the allegations in the complaint are otherwise correct or not, has to be decided on the basis of the evidence to be led during the course of trial. Simply because there is a remedy provided for breach of contract or arbitral proceedings initiated at the instance of the appellant, that does not by itself clothe the court to come to a conclusion that civil remedy is the only remedy, and the initiation of criminal proceedings, in any manner, will be an abuse of the process of the court for exercising inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing such proceedings."

7. From perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case, prima facie, offence under Section 306 I.P.C. is made out against the applicant. There is material evidence against the applicant which demonstrates the involvement of the applicant in abetting and instigating the informant's husband to commit suicide. The F.I.R. discloses that deceased went with the applicant and thereafter his body was found hanging in a mango orchard and a suicidal note has been recovered from the possession of the deceased in which he has made allegation against the applicant. The commission of suicide take effect when deceased is under heavy pressure by things committed by himself or pressure given by outsider. The effect of threat hammers emotional person very quickly. In the present case, accused persons are involved in committing fraud and, a suicide note has been recovered from the possession of deadbody. Moreover, one day before suicide, deceased was with the applicant. Reliance placed by the learned counsel for the applicant over the Apex Court judgment, is not relatable to the facts of the present case. As such, is not applicable in the present case. The evidence collected by the I.O., prima facie, discloses material evidence against the applicant to prosecute him under the aforesaid sections. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

8. In view of the above, in the light of judgment of the Apex Court in the matters of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, Manik B. Vs. Kadapala Sreyes Reddy & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 642, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283,, no ground for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case, is made out which may call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

9. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 29.7.2025 Meenu Singh

Applicant :- Mohit Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Deeksha Gupta,Siddharth Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants; learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 23.08.2024; cognizance dated 11.09.2024 as well as entire proceedings of Session Trial No. 958 of 2024 (state vs Shailendra verma and others) Case Crime No.0020 of 2023, U/S 306,34,406,419,420 I.P.C. police station- Kotwali Kannauj, District- Kannauj.

3. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that informant's husband (deceased) was employed in Bank of India on contract. The named accused persons committed fraud and tried to implicate the deceased, informant's husband. They started to harass the deceased and on 30.12.2022, the husband of informant (deceased) went with the applicant and he did not return. Subsequently, the deceased was found hanging with mango tree on 01.01.2023. Counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant having no concern with the alleged incident. The F.I.R. was lodged after 13 days of the incident on the presumption. On perusal of F.I.R. and other material evidence, there is no evidence that applicant abetted the deceased to commit suicide and ingredient of Section 306 I.P.C. is not made out. He next submitted that informant was not present at the time of inquest and she was informed with regard to death of her husband by her niece. Prima facie, it is a case of suicide. The applicant is peon in bank and his work is only to assist and accomplish the task assigned to him by his officials and nothing else and deceased was also employee on contractual basis. The learned Magistrate without applying judicial mind summoned the applicant. In support of his submission, counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon para-2 of the judgement of Apex Court in Swamy Prahaladdas Vs. State of M.P. reported in 1995 Supp 3 SCC 438 in which the Court has clearly stated that the appellant is said to have remarked for the deceased to and die and in that case, the Apex Court has not found offence under Section 306 I.P.C. Reliance has also been placed upon para-45 of the judgment of Apex Court in M. Mohan Vs. The State Represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police reported in 2011 3 SCC 626 wherein the Court has held that abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. It is next argued that in view of the aforesaid judgments and evidence collected by the Investigating Officer in the present case, no offence disclosed against the applicant to prosecute him in the present case.

4. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case and submitted that on perusal of F.I.R., it is apparent that on 30.12.2022 deceased went with the applicant, thereafter his body was found hanging with a mango tree. Moreover, a suicidal note has been recovered in which the deceased has stated that on account of torture of the accused persons, he has committed suicide. He next submitted that submission raised by counsel for the applicant is based on factual dispute. The trial court has to examine the same. This Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has no power to examine the factual dispute of the matter.

5. The Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Allauddin Khan Vs. State of Bihar and others reported in (2019) 6 SCC 107 has held in para No.14 as follows:- "14. In our view, the High Court had no jurisdiction to appreciate the evidence of the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.") because whether there are contradictions or/and inconsistencies in the statements of the witnesses is essentially an issue relating to appreciation of evidence and the same can be gone into by the Judicial Magistrate during trial when the entire evidence is adduced by the parties. That stage is yet to come in this case."

6. The Apex Court in Priti Saraf and another Vs. State of NCT of Delhi and Another reported in AIR 2021 SC 1531 has held that: "To exercise powers under Section 482, complaint in its entirety have to be examined on basis of allegation made in complaint/FIR/Charge sheet. High Court at that stage not under an obligation to go into matter or examine its correctness. Whatever appears on face of complaint/FIR/charge sheet to be taken into consideration without any critical examination of same. Offence ought to appear ex facie on complaint/FIR/charge sheet and other documentary evidence, on record. It is thus settled that exercise of inherent power of High Court is an extraordinary power which has to be exercised with great care and circumspection before embarking to scrutinize complaint/FIR/charge sheet in deciding whether case is rarest of rare case, to scuttle prosecution at its inception. Whether the allegations in the complaint are otherwise correct or not, has to be decided on the basis of the evidence to be led during the course of trial. Simply because there is a remedy provided for breach of contract or arbitral proceedings initiated at the instance of the appellant, that does not by itself clothe the court to come to a conclusion that civil remedy is the only remedy, and the initiation of criminal proceedings, in any manner, will be an abuse of the process of the court for exercising inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing such proceedings."

7. From perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case, prima facie, offence under Section 306 I.P.C. is made out against the applicant. There is material evidence against the applicant which demonstrates the involvement of the applicant in abetting and instigating the informant's husband to commit suicide. The F.I.R. discloses that deceased went with the applicant and thereafter his body was found hanging in a mango orchard and a suicidal note has been recovered from the possession of the deceased in which he has made allegation against the applicant. The commission of suicide take effect when deceased is under heavy pressure by things committed by himself or pressure given by outsider. The effect of threat hammers emotional person very quickly. In the present case, accused persons are involved in committing fraud and, a suicide note has been recovered from the possession of deadbody. Moreover, one day before suicide, deceased was with the applicant. Reliance placed by the learned counsel for the applicant over the Apex Court judgment, is not relatable to the facts of the present case. As such, is not applicable in the present case. The evidence collected by the I.O., prima facie, discloses material evidence against the applicant to prosecute him under the aforesaid sections. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

8. In view of the above, in the light of judgment of the Apex Court in the matters of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, Manik B. Vs. Kadapala Sreyes Reddy & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 642, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283,, no ground for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case, is made out which may call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

9. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 29.7.2025 Meenu Singh