Dismissed

Bhupesh Kumar Sharma v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Rajasthan HC13 Sept 2017CRLR/397/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismissed two criminal revision petitions challenging the framing of charges under Sections 306 and 120-B IPC for abetment of suicide. The High Court rejected the petitioners' reliance on precedent regarding domestic disputes, hold

What did the court decide?

The petitions were dismissed, and the imugned order framing charges was upheld. Petitioners were directed to face trial as ordered by the trial court.

Bhupesh Kumar Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 397 / 2017

¶3

Bhupesh Kumar Sharma Son of Sh. Mahesh Chand Harit, by Caste Brahmin, R/o Hazari Mohalla, Bali Ka Darwaja, Near Jagnnath Temple, Police Station Kotwali, Alwar At Present Quarter No. E- 1/8, Road No.01, Ganpati Nagar, Police Station Sadar, Jaipur.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Rajasthan Through P.P.

¶7

Chander Singh Meena Son of Sh. Late Nahar Singh Meena, by Caste Meena, R/o 15-A, Bhuvneshwar Vatika II, Meena Wala, Sirsi Road, Police Station Karni Vihar.

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

Connected With

¶10

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 422 / 2017

¶11

Jagdish Prasad S/o Late Shri Prabhati Lal B/c Raiger, Aged About 52 Years, R/o B-439, Mahesh Nagar, Jaipur

¶12

----Petitioner

¶13

State of Rajasthan Through PP

¶14

Chandra Singh Meena S/o Shri Nahar Singh Meena, R/o 15-A, Bhuvneshwar Vatika, Second Meenawala, Sirsi Road, Police Station Karni Vihar, Jaipur

¶15

----Respondents

¶16

_____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh & Mr. Shishupal Singh For State : Mr. Aladeen Khan-P.P.

¶17

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

¶18

Order

¶19

13/09/2017

¶20

Vide this order above mentioned, two petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the order

¶21

(2 of 5)

¶22

[CRLR-397/2017]

¶23

whereby, charge under Section 306 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as ‘IPC’) read with Section 120-B IPC was ordered to be framed against them.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that no offence punishable under Section 306 IPC can be said to have been committed by the petitioners. Petitioners have been falsely involved in this case. Learned counsel have placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Manish Kumar Sharma Versus State of Rajasthan 1995 Cri. L. J. 3066 , wherein it was held as

¶25

under:-

¶26

“Demanding a sum of money given on loan is not an offence under any provision of the criminal law. Taking out a willing and mature lady to Ram Niwas Garden or certain hotels, is also no offence. Frequent visits by the accused-petitioner to the house of Smt. Kusum Devi was also no offence because it is not said that he was visiting the house against the wishes of Smt.

¶27

Kusum Devi.”

¶28

Learned counsel have next placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Vijay Kumar Rastogi Versus State of Rjasthan 2012(2) Crimes 628 (Raj.) , wherein it was held as

¶29

under:-

¶30

“Mere threats of involving the family in a false and

¶31

frivolous cases cannot be held to tantamount to instigation. Instigation has been interpreted to mean to provoke, to incite, to urge a person to do a particular act. However by these threats it cannot be held that the

¶32

(3 of 5)

¶33

[CRLR-397/2017]

¶34

accused-respondents instigated Ashok Kumar to commit suicide.

¶35

In the suicide note left by the deceased, he has merely stated that "in case Nisha were to come back home, she would ruin the family". Even the said suicide note cannot be held to be indicative of the fact that Nisha and her father, Dilip Kumar, have instigated or intentionally aided Ashok Kumar in committing suicide.”

¶36

Learned counsel have next placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gangula Mohan Reddy Versus State of Andhra Pradesh, 2010 (1) SCC 750 , wherein

¶37

it was held as under:-

¶38

“ Learned counsel also placed reliance on another

¶39

judgment of this court in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618. A three-Judge bench of this court had an occasion to deal with a case of a similar nature. In a dispute between the husband and wife, the appellant husband uttered "you are free to do whatever you wish and go wherever you like". Thereafter, the wife of the appellant Ramesh Kumar committed suicide. The Court inparagraph 20 has examined different shades of the meaning of "instigation'. Para 20 reads as under:

¶40

"20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do "an act". To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect. or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of

¶41

(4 of 5)

¶42

[CRLR-397/2017]

¶43

being spelt out. the present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation."

¶44

Learned State Counsel on the other hand has opposed the petitions.

¶45

Present case relates to suicide committed by Nahar Singh. Deceased had left behind a suicide note. Trial Court while ordering the framing of charges against the petitioners under Section 306 IPC read with Section 120-B IPC has taken in consideration the suicide note left by the deceased, wherein he had stated that accused had taken a blank cheque from him. Although, he had returned the loan taken by him to the tune of Rs. 25,000/-, complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was filed against the deceased by filling in Rs. 2,10,000/- in the blank cheque issued by him. Accused got the house of the deceased sold and gave Rs. 50,000/- to Sedu Ram and kept the deceased in a railway quarter. Accused had made a complaint against the deceased and had got his promotion stopped. As a result, accused Bhupesh Kumar earned a promotion. Deceased had also threatened that he would not be allowed to

¶46

take the money liable to be paid to him at the time of his retirement. On account of harassment meted out to the deceased

¶47

(5 of 5)

¶48

[CRLR-397/2017]

¶49

at the hands of the accused, he committed suicide.

¶50

In the circumstances of the present case, learned trial court rightly ordered the framing of charges against the petitioners under Section 306 read with Section 120-B IPC.

¶51

The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners fail to advance the case of the petitioners as they are based on different facts.

¶52

Accordingly, these petitions are dismissed.

¶53

(SABINA) J.

¶54

Sudha/79-80

Bhupesh Kumar Sharma v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhupesh Kumar Sharma v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shashi Bharti Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

J v v N L L Td and Anr. Vs Upper District and Session Jud

Mohan Singh and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Rameshwar Prasad Bunkar and Ors. Vs the New India Assurance Company and Ors.

Atar Singh Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Kanchan Lal Vs Secretary to the Govt and Ors.