Rugha Ram vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors

The instant misc. petition is preferred by the petitioner accused Rugha Ram being aggrieved of the order dated 27.3.2017 passed by the Additional

Sessions Judge No.3, Bikaner in Criminal Revision No.133/2015 whereby, the revisional court dismissed the revision of the petitioner and upheld the

order dated 18.07.2014 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Nokha in Criminal Misc. Case No.541/2014 taking cognizance against the petitioner

for the offence under Section 306 of the IPC in connection with Final Report No.75/2014 arising out of FIR No.33/2014 registered at the Police

Station Panchu, District Bikaner.

I have heard and considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned orders and the

original record.

Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the misc. petition are that Shri Hukum Singh-respondent No.2 lodged a written report at the Police

Station Panchu on 25.2.2014 alleging inter-alia that his younger brother Manohar Singh had taken a labour contract in the bhujiya (savories) factory of

the present petitioner Rugha Ram, who owed a sum of Rs.2,08,000/- to Manohar Singh. Manohar Singh demanded the said amount from Rugha Ram.

Rather than repaying the dues, Rugha Ram sent a false notice to Manohar Singh with the allegation of theft. Because of this, Manohar Singh became

severely perturbed and ended his life by hanging himself on a khejari tree in the field of Surata Ram. The matter was thoroughly investigated. The

Investigating Officer collected the CCTV footage of the petitioner’s factory, recorded the statements of various witnesses and concluded that

Manohar Singh had indeed misappropriated certain quantity of bhujiya from the factory of the petitioner Rugha Ram who discovered the incident on

watching the CCTV footage. A panchayati was convened in the factory. Both the sides were present in the panchayati. Manohar Singh confessed to

his guilt and agreed to pay a sum of Rs.2,08,000/- as damages. The factory owner proposed that he would not take the compensation and that a sum

of Rs.21,000/- should be donated to the gaushala. Manohar Singh came back to his village. Thereafter, he did not go to the factory and ended his life

by hanging himself in the field of Surata Ram on 25.2.2014. With this finding, the Investigating Officer proceeded to submit a Final Report in the court

concerned. Acting on the protest petition filed by the complainant, the learned Magistrate, took cognizance against the present petitioner by order

dated 18.7.2014 for the offence under Section 306 I.P.C., taking note of the fact that as per the documents available on record, it came to the fore

that the deceased Manohar Singh had sent a notice to the accused petitioner Rugha Ram demanding a due sum of Rs.2,08,000/- from him. The

accused replied to the said notice imputing that the Manohar Singh had committed theft in his bhujiya factory and thus, there was a monetary dispute

between the parties. The Court held that the conduct of the accused in not lodging a criminal case despite the theft, brought his defence theory under

a cloud of doubt. It was further concluded that the false reply with allegation of theft given by the accused to the notice issued by the deceased must

have brought him under tremendous pressure and feeling of ignomity, as a result whereof, he was compelled to end his life. With this conclusion, the

learned trial court proceeded to take cognizance against the petitioner for the offence under Section 306 IPC by the order dated 18.07.2014. The

petitioner unsuccessfully challenged the order passed by the trial court in revision, which was dismissed as above. Hence, this misc. petition.

Shri Vineet Jain, learned counsel representing the petitioner relied upon the Hon’ble Supreme Court decisions in the cases of Madan Mohan Singh

Vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1048; Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu Vs. State of West Bengal reported in (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 896 and

Gangula Mohan Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 917 and urged that even if the allegations as disclosed from the

entire material collected by the Investigating Officer, are accepted to be true on the face of the record, prima-facie ingredients of the offence under

Section 306 IPC are not made out against the petitioner. He contended that even assuming for a moment that the petitioner had given a reply with

false imputation of theft to the notice for demand of money forwarded by the deceased, it cannot be concluded by any stretch of imagination that the

contents of the said reply could have instigated the deceased to commit suicide. He thus urged that the impugned orders are bad in the eye of law and

the proposed prosecution of the accused petitioner for the offence under Section 306 IPC is absolutely unjustified and amounts to sheer abuse of

process of court. On these grounds, Shri Jain sought acceptance of the misc. petition.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and the counsel representing the complainant vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by

the petitioner’s counsel. Nonetheless, they too are not in a position to dispute the fact that the highest case of the prosecution as set out from the

allegations levelled in the complaint, evidence of the witnesses and the other material collected by the Investigating Officer, indicate the existence of a

monetary dispute between the accused and the deceased. Whilst the deceased, on the one hand, claimed that the accused owed him a sum of

Rs.2,08,000/-, on the other hand, the accused claimed that the deceased had committed theft in his bhujiya factory, which incident was recorded in the

CCTV footage of which CD was provided to the Investigating Officer by him. As is the admitted case of the prosecution, the deceased was just a

labour contractor who used to work in the factory of the petitioner and also provided labour therein. Neither any material was collected by the

Investigating Officer nor was any proof provided by the complainant to inspire confidence in the theory that the accused owed a sum of Rs.2,08,000/-

odd to the deceased. Even if it is assumed that any such notice and reply were exchanged, manifestly, the fall out thereof would be of taking recourse

to the courts of law for ventilating the grievances if any. Apparently, there is no allegation of the prosecution that the accused tried to extort any

money or valuable security from the deceased or made attempt to extract confession of theft etc. from him. Therefore, it is my considered opinion that

the admitted material available on record does not provide even prima-facie material to satisfy the Court that the accused-petitioner instigated or

abetted the deceased to commit suicide.

In this background, the impugned order dated 18.7.2014 whereby the learned trial court took cognizance against the accused-petitioner for the offence

under Section 306 IPC so also the order dated 27.3.2017 passed by revisional court are without any foundation and amount to gross abuse of process

of law.

Accordingly, the misc. petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned orders dated 27.3.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge

No.3, Bikaner in Criminal Revision No.133/2015 and the order dated 18.7.2014 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Nokha whereby cognizance

for offence under Section 306 I.P.C. was taken against the petitioner so also the proceedings of the Cr.Case No.541/2014 pending in the court of

learned Judicial Magistrate, Nokha are hereby quashed.

The stay petition is disposed of.