This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with the prayer that the entire proceedings of Case 4325 of 2007 ( State Vs. Ghanshyam Das Jaiswal) pending in the court of ACMM Ist, Kanpur Nagar under Sections 306, 504 and 506 I.P.C. based on chargesheet no. 13 of 2006 dated 31.1.2006 arising out of Case Crime No. C-11/2005, Police Station Pheelkhana, Kanpur Nagar be quashed alongwith the order dated 3.3.2008 through which a non- bailable warrant was issued against the applicants.
Brief facts of this case are that opposite party no. 2 Manju Rai, filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. in the court of ACMM 1st, Kanpur Nagar. She has mentioned in it that she is wife of one Late Ranjeet Kumar Rai. The house in which she was living alongwith her family was purchased on 25.6.2003 by one Mohini Devi Jaiswal, who is the wife of applicant no. 1, Ghanshyam Das Jaiswal. After purchasing the said house, the applicants insisted and pressurized the family of opposite party no. 2 to vacate the house. For the purpose they often sent to that house goons and sometime they came there personally to threaten the family members and abuse them. They were threatening them of dire consequences if O.P. No. 2 and her family do not vacate the said house. Due to this constant threatening the husband of the opposite party no. 2 suffered a heart attack and as a consequence he was to be hospitalised. In this regard an application was moved by the son of opposite party no. 2 to the police authorities but no action was taken against the applicants. On 21.5.2005 the husband of the opposite party no. 2 suffered second heart attack and as a consequence he died. Opposite party no. 2 thereafter sent a number of complaints to the police and administrative authorities and when no action was taken by them, she filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. in the court of learned Magistrate. After hearing the complainant of the said complaint/O.P. No. 2 on said application the learned Magistrate allowed the application and as a consequence a case was registered at P.S. Pheelkhana as Case Crime No. C-11/05 under Section 306 I.P.C. against both the applicants. The matter was investigated and a chargesheet under Sections 306/504/506 I.P.C. was submitted by the I.O. in the court of learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the case and issued processes against them. When they did not appear the learned Magistrate issued non bailable warrant against the applicant. Feeling aggrieved by such proceedings and order, the applicants have moved the present petition.
Heard Mr. Rajeev Gupta, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Mukul Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
It has been submitted from the side of the applicants that in the instant case no offence under Section 306 I.P.C. is made out because the husband of opposite party no. 2 had died due to heart attack and it is not a case in which he had committed suicide.
It has been contended from the side of opposite party no. 2that due to harassment and threatening, given by the applicants, the husband of opposite party no. 2 has suffered heart attack and therefore it is a case covered under Section 306 I.P.C.
Section 306 I.P.C. is as follows :
"306. If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine."
From perusal of this section it is evident that there should be a suicide by some one to constitute an offence punishable under Section 306 I.P.C. In (2010) 1 Supreme Court Cases (Cri.) 917 (Gangula Moan Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh) and (2011) 2 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1 ( M. Mohan Vs. State represented by the Deputy Superintedent of Police) it has been categorically held by the Apex Court that to constitute an offence punishable under Section 306 I.P.C. there must be a suicide by some one. In the case in hand it is evident that the husband of opposite party no. 2 had died due to heart attack and he did not commit suicide, therefore filing of a chargesheet and cognizance of the case under such section was totally uncalled for and such type of proceedings cannot be allowed to continue. From the perusal of the copy of the ordersheet it is evident that the learned Magistrate has issued non-bailable warrant in a routine manner without ensuring whether the applicants were served with the summons issued by his court or not. It also appears that the order dated 30.11.2007 was written by his reader and he simply put his initials on it. Such type of practice on the part of a Magistrate is not desirable.
On the basis of the above discussion, I am of the view that opposite party no. 2 has adopted a practice to harass the applicants which is absolutely an abuse of process of law.
As a consequence the petition is to be allowed and it is accordingly allowed. The entire proceedings of Case 4325 of 2007 ( State Vs. Ghanshyam Das Jaiswal) pending in the court of ACMM Ist, Kanpur Nagar under Sections 306, 504 and 506 I.P.C. based on chargesheet no. 13 of 2006 dated 31.1.2006 arising out of Case Crime No. C-11/2005, Police Station Pheelkhana, Kanpur Nagar alongwith the order dated 3.3.2008 is quashed Order Date :- 26.9.2011 S.B.