Dismissed

State Of Chhattisgarh v. Nidhi @ Presha Jain

Chhattisgarh HC10 Nov 2017CRR/411/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed a criminal revision against an order discharging accused persons for alleged abetment of suicide. The Court held that filing complaints and seeking property partitions are legal rights and do not constitute abetment under Section 107 IPC.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision preferred under CrPC is dismissed at the motion stage; the accompanying stay application is also dismissed.

State Of Chhattisgarh Vs Nidhi @ Presha Jain — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Criminal Revision No.411 of 2016

¶4

State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.

¶5

---- Revisioner/Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

1. Nidhi @ Presha Jain W/o Manish Jain Aged About 36 Years R/o Naya Sarafa Road, Balaghat, P.S. Tahsil And Distt. Balaghat (M.P.).

¶8

2. Kumar Namrata D/o Lalit Couradiya Aged About 28 Years R/o Naya Sarafa Road, Balaghat, P.S. Tahsil And Distt. Balaghat (M.P.).

¶9

3. Smt. Nirmalal W/o Lalit Chouradiya Aged About 60 Years R/o Naya Sarafa Road, Balaghat, P.S. Tahsil And Distt. Balaghat (M.P.).

¶10

4. Lalit Chouradiya S/o Bhairudan Chouradiya Aged About 62 Years R/o Naya Sarafa Road, Balaghat, P.S. Tahsil And Distt. Balaghat (M.P.).

¶11

5. Prashant S/o Lalit Chouradiya Aged About 33 Years R/o Naya Sarafa Road, Balaghat, P.S. Tahsil And Distt. Balaghat (M.P.).

¶12

---- Non Revisioners/Respondents

¶13

For Revisioner/applicant/State : Shri Anil Pandey, Govt. Advocate For respondents : Shri Rajat Agrawal, Advocate

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma Order On Board

¶15

10.11.2017

¶16

1 . This revision is preferred against the order dated 03.11.2015 passed by Sessions Judge, Session Division, Rajnandgaon in Sessions Case No.76/2015 wherein the said Court discharged the non-revisioners for commission of offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

2 . In the present case, name of the person who committed suicide is Manoj Jain, who is the brother of Manish Jain. Manish Jain was married to non-revisioner No.1- Nidhi @ Presha Jain.

¶18

¶19

Non-revisioner Lalit Chouradiya is father of Nidhi Jain, nonrevisioner Smt. Nirmala is mother of Nidhi Jain, non-revisioner Kumari Namrata is sister of Nidhi Jain and non-revisioner Prashant is brother of Nidhi Jain. Brother of Manish Jain namely Manoj Jain committed suicide on 30.11.2014 by his licenced revolver.

¶20

3 . As per the revisioner, all the non-revisioners demanded share in the joint property and again non-revisioner Nidhi @ Presha Jain filed complaint under Section 498-A of IPC against Manish Jain and his relatives including deceased Manoj Jain.

¶21

4 . The core issue of this revision is whether any of the nonrevisioners has abetted Manoj Jain to commit suicide.

¶22

5 . 'Abetment' has been defined under Section 107 of the IPC

¶23

which reads as under:-

¶24

“1 07. Abetment of a thing - A person abets the doing of a thing, who- First - Instigates any person to do that thing; or

¶25

Secondly - Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursurance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or

¶26

Thirdly - Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

¶27

Explanation 1. A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.”

¶28

6 . Total evidence collected by the prosecution including the suicidal note, alleged to have written by the deceased, goes to show that wife of Manish Jain, who is non-revisioner No.1 here,

¶29

¶30

has filed a complaint under Section 498-A of the IPC against her husband and in-laws including deceased Manoj Jain and again she claimed partition in the joint property. If the entire evidence collected by the prosecution is taken as it is, the same is only taking recourse to the remedy available to non-revisioner No.1 under the law against the cruelty meted out to her by her husband and other members of the matrimonial house including deceased Manoj Jain and if any cognizable offence is reported before the police authorities, the authorities are duty bound to investigate the matter and if it is found that there is sufficient evidence to proceed they can file charge sheet against the persons and the same is not an abetment as defined above. Again asking partition in property is well within the authority of co-sharer and for that it cannot be said that one has abetted for suicide. If one has share in the property he can mutate his name separately in records of the right and can take possession of the separated property. All these proceedings are legal proceedings which can be settled either by proper forum or by negotiation. When there is nothing prima facie that any of the revisioner has abetted the deceased and no prima facie evidence when they met with the deceased before the incident, there is no substance to say that the act of any of the non-revisioners was sarcastic for the deceased. Looking to the bald and vague statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC in which it is no where mentioned as to when any of the non-revisioners met the deceased, the trial Judge was right in discharging the non-revisioners.

¶31

¶32

7 . The revision has no substance and the same is dismissed at the motion stage itself. Consequently, IA No.02/17 which is an application for grant of stay stands dismissed.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

(Ram Prasanna Sharma)

¶35

JUDGE

¶36

Bini

State Of Chhattisgarh v. Nidhi @ Presha Jain

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Of Chhattisgarh v. Nidhi @ Presha Jain

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandra Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramawtar Pando Vs State of C.G.

Anand Prasad Gupta Vs the State of C.G.

Sampat Dharvaiya Vs State of C.G.

Sanjay Kumar Sahu Vs Smt. Nisha Sahu

Manoj Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh