Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:61188 Court No. - 84 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 42012 of 2024 Applicant :- Rakesh Chaturvedi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ansar Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant to quash the impugned charge sheet dated 24.07.2023 as well as the summoning order dated 01.02.2024 passed by learned CJM, Etawah in Case No. 416 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 145 of 2023, under Section 306 I.P.C., Police Station- Kotwali, District- Etawah. 3. It is alleged in the FIR that applicant is husband of deceased and marriage of applicant with deceased was solemnized in the year 2007, thereafter, two daughter were born from the wedlock and at present, they are aged about 15 and 14 years. It is also alleged in the FIR that as no male child was born, therefore, applicant used to torture the deceased/his wife, as a result of which, deceased committed suicide. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submit that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case being husband of the deceased. Applicant marriage was solemnized with the deceased in the year 2007 and two daughters were born from the wedlock. The allegation that applicant used to torture his wife as she did not bear male child, is false & baseless and without support of any evidence. There is no evidence that applicant abated the deceased to commit suicide. Prima facie, no offence under Section 306 IPC is made out and whole proceeding initiated against the applicant is illegal & arbitrary in manner and liable to be quashed. In support of his submission learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance over the judgment dated 05.03.2024 passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prabhat Kumar Mishra @ Prabhat Mishra Vs. The State of U.P. & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No(s). of 2024, Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No(s). 9591 of 2022). Para nos. 40 & 41 of the same are quoted as under:- "40. The learned counsel also placed reliance on yet another judgment of this Court in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh [(2001) 9 SCC 618], in which a three- Judge Bench of this Court had an occasion to deal with the 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. 41. This Court in SCC para 20 of Ramesh Kumar [(2001) 9 SCC 618 has examined different shades of the meaning of "instigation". Para 20 reads as under: "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 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. In the said case this Court came to the conclusion that there is no evidence and material available on record wherefrom an inference of the appellant- accused having abetted commission of suicide by Seema (the appellant's wife therein) may necessarily be drawn." 5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that, prima facie, offence is made out against the applicant, hence, applicant is not entitled for relief as prayed. 6. Considered the submissions raised by learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record. From the record, it is admitted fact that deceased is wife of applicant and their marriage was solemnized in the year 2007 and two daughter were born from the wedlock. From the record, it is also apparent that one daughter, namely, Richa Chaturvedi, has given statement that on the date of incident i.e. 23.06.2023, some dispute took place between her father and mother, thereafter, her mother had locked herself in a room and committed suicide. From the statement of the daughter of applicant, prima facie, offence under Section 306 IPC is made out as some hot talk took place between applicant and his wife/deceased. Evidence has yet to come by examination of the witnesses in regard to abatement and at this stage evidence is against the applicant as hot talk took place between applicant and his wife in the presence of daughter-witnesses. At present, prima facie, ingredients of abatement is present. Further, Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with the matter in hand has found that what husband uttered with his wife but in the present case, daughter of the applicant is yet to be examined by the Trial Court in regard to the fact that what hot talk took place between the applicant and deceased, as such, facts discussed in the aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court, are entirely different from the facts involved in the present case and the aforesaid judgment is not applicable in the present case. No interference is warranted by this Court. 7. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 23.4.2025/Aditya Digitally signed by :- ADITYA KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad