Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

"Act Not a Remote Cause for Abetment of Suicide": Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes FIR Under Section 306 IPC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Madhya Pradesh High Court (Indore Bench) under Justice Pranay Verma has quashed an FIR and chargesheet against Ramchandra @ Ramdeepak Goyan, registered for alleged abetment to suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The Court opined, "In absence of establishing necessary ingredients for attracting Section 306 of the IPC, the petitioner cannot be compelled to face the trial unnecessarily."

According to the details of the case, the petitioner was accused of not paying for the crops of the deceased, Laxminarayan, who later committed suicide. The charges were brought under Sections 420, 306, and 34 of the IPC. However, the Court observed that the prosecution failed to establish the element of instigation or abetment on part of the petitioner.

Justice Pranay Verma, while elucidating the element of 'instigation,' cited the Apex Court's judgment in Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Senger V/s. State of M.P., stating, "Even if we accept the prosecution story that the appellant did tell the deceased 'to go and die,' that itself does not constitute the ingredient of 'instigation.'"

Further relying on Gangula Mohan Reddi V/s. State of Andhra Pradesh, the Court emphasized, "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."

The Court also referred to its earlier judgment in Hukum Singh Yadav V/s. State of M.P. to elaborate that abusing and threatening alone could not be assumed to be instigation or abetment to suicide.

As a consequence of the analysis, the Court quashed the FIR and the final chargesheet dated 22.07.2022 against Ramchandra only in so far as Section 306 of the IPC is concerned. The proceedings under other sections will continue.

This judgment has been seen as a clarification on the critical elements required for constituting abetment to suicide under Section 306 IPC. Legal experts believe that this decision will serve as a landmark in preventing unnecessary criminal trials when the requisite elements are not met.

Date of Decision: 06-10-2023 

RAMCHANDRA @ RAMDEEPAK GOYAN  vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Latest Legal News