TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (3) TMI 2090
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) Act, 1989. 3. In pursuance of the notice issued by this Court on 19 November, 2018, the Respondent has entered appearance through learned Counsel. We have heard the Deputy Advocate General for the State of Madhya Pradesh and learned Counsel for the Respondent. 4. On 9 August 2017, Jyoti Sharma committed suicide by consuming poison at her residence at Neemuch. Immediately after she consumed poison, she was moved to the District hospital for treatment. The dying declaration of the victim was recorded on 9 August 2017 in the presence of the Naib Tehsildar, Neemuch. The relevant part of the dying declaration is extracted below: Question: What has happened to you? Answer: I have consumed poison. Question: Why you have consumed poison? Answer: I am not able to get the job, wherever I go, Deepak Bhamawat R/o Jeeran, get me sacked out from the job. Earlier he had molested me, on which, I had instituted a case against him, since then, he is harassing me. Question: Whether you want to say anything else? Answer: No. 5. Jyoti Sharma died on 10 August 2017 at a hospital in Udaipur where she was admitted for treatment. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....el submitted that on the contents of the FIR, the High Court was justified in coming to the conclusion that there was no provocation, inducement or incitement that would fall within the description of 'abetment' to sustain a charge Under Section 306 of the Penal Code. 9. The only circumstance which has weighed with the High Court in passing the impugned order is what has been stated in the following extract: 11. .... Merely the deceased was failing to get any job and she is under impression that the Petitioner is creating burden and hence she did not get any new job. He never intended that deceased should commit suicide. The High Court held thus: 16 ...in the facts and circumstances of the present case, there is no evidence with regard to provocation, incitement or encouragement for commitment of suicide by the deceased... 10. We shall now examine whether the High Court has correctly exercised its revisional jurisdiction Under Section 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 "Procedure Code" in discharging the Respondent of the charges framed by the Special Judge, Neemuch. 11. In Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander (2012) 9 SCC 460, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Code or together, as the case may be: 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. 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. 27.4. Where the exercise of such power is absolutely essential to prevent patent miscarriage of justice and for correcting some grave error that might be committed by the subordinate courts even in such cases, the High Court should be loath to interfere, at the threshold, to throttle the prosecution in exercise of its inherent powers. 27.9. Another very significant caution that the courts have to observe is that it cannot examine the facts, evidence and materials on record....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gments of this Court. In Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2009) 16 SCC 605, the Appellant and two other individuals were charged Under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code. It had been alleged that the Appellant and the other Accused persons had forcibly compelled the deceased to sign a settlement giving up a part of his share in the profits from the sale of certain land. This led to a dispute and as a result of the mental harassment suffered by the deceased, he committed suicide. The Court affirmed the framing of charges by the trial court. The two-judge Bench of this Court laid down the ingredients of the offence of abetment of suicide. Justice D K Jain held thus: 19. As observed in Ramesh Kumar [(2001) 9 SCC 618: 2002 SCC (Cri.) 1088], where the Accused by his acts or by a continued course of conduct creates such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide, an "instigation" may be inferred. In other words, in order to prove that the Accused abetted commission of suicide by a person, it has to be established that: (i) the Accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words, deeds or ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cient ground for proceeding against the Accused" or there is ground for "presuming" that the offence has been committed. Justice G P Mathur held thus: 9. In Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad v. Dilip Nathumal Chordia, the Court while examining the scope of Section 227 held as under: ... Section 227 itself contains enough guidelines as to the scope of inquiry for the purpose of discharging an Accused. It provides that 'the judge shall discharge when he considers that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the Accused'. The 'ground' in the context is not a ground for conviction, but a ground for putting the Accused on trial. It is in the trial, the guilt or the innocence of the Accused will be determined and not at the time of framing of charge. The court, therefore, need not undertake an elaborate inquiry in sifting and weighing the material. Nor is it necessary to delve deep into various aspects. All that the court has to consider is whether the evidentiary material on record, if generally accepted, would reasonably connect the Accused with the crime. 10. The High Court did not at all apply the relevant test, namely, whether th....