1 2025:CGHC:13991 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 385 of 2025 1 - Dara Singh Parihar S/o Shri Gopal Singh Parihar Aged About 46 Years R/o Q.No. 200/b, Shivmangal Apartment, Ring Road, Bilaspur, P.S.- Tarbahar, Tehsil- Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.), Permanent Address- Ward No.-46, Basantur, P.S.- Basantpur, Tehsil and District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.). 2 - Neelima Singh @ Neelam @ Neelu D/o Shri Pitamber Singh Rajput Aged About 34 Years Near Ram Darbar Mandir, Gada Chowk, Thakurpara, Police Station- Saraswati Nagar, Kota, District- Raipur (C.G.). ... Applicants/Petitioners versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, Police Station- Kumhari, District- Durg (C.G.). 2 - Superintendent of Police Durg, District- Durg (C.G.). 3 - Smt. Bhoomika Thakur W/o Late Shri Ashish Singh Thakur Aged About 34 Years R/o Housing Board Colony, L.I.G.-20, Kumhari, P.S.- Kumhari, District- Durg (C.G.). ... Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Surfaraj Khan, Advocate For State/Respondents No.1 & 2 : Mr. Karan Kumar Bahrani, PL Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 24/03/2025 VASANT KUMAR Digitally signed by VASANT KUMAR 2 1. Heard on I.A. No.02/2025, application for condonation of delay in filing the instant revision. 2. On due consideration and for the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. Delay of 2461 days in filing the revision is condoned. 3. This criminal revision has been preferred by the applicants under Section 438/442 of the BNSS, 2023, being aggrieved by the charge framed under Section 306, 34 of IPC in Sessions Trial No.160/2018 (State of Chhattisgarh Vs. Priya Rajput @ Sonam @ Soni & 02 others), by the Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Durg (C.G.) on 12.12.2018. 4. Brief facts of this case are that on 12/04/2018, at Kumhari, District- Durg (C.G.), the deceased namely Ashish Singh (Police Constable) committed suicide by hanging, on account of mental harassment alleged to be done by the petitioners & co-accused (Priya Rajput). On 17.04.2018, an F.I.R. No. 118/2018, U/s- 306/34 of I.P.C. Is lodged by the police of police Station- Kumhari against the petitioners and co-accused Priya Rajput @ Sonam @ Soni. However, the deceased namely Ashish Singh was a Police Constable and was posted at Bhilai. Deceased has actually committed sexual intercourse with the petitioner no. 2 namely Neelima Singh @ Neelam @ Neelu, for which the petitioner no. 2 namely Neelima Singh @ Neelam @ Neelu has lodged report against the deceased on 12/03/2018 (One Month before the date of incident), at the office of Superintendent of Police Durg. Petitioner No. 2 even consumed poison and was hospitalized in District Hospital, Bilaspur, wherein 3 the deceased Ashish Singh has admitted the petitioner no. 2 by showing her to be the wife. The petitioners are on bail. The petitioner no. 1 has filed a Cr.M.P. No. 2288/2018 before this Hon'ble Court by challenging the charge sheet. On 28.01.2025, this Hon'ble court of pleased to disposed of the said petition. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants contended that the learned trial Judge acted with material irregularities and had passed the impugned order (Annexure P- 1), with non-application of mind because by perceiving (to see) the act, as alleged by the prosecution, any prudent person can come to a conclusion that, no act is committed by the present petitioners. Perhaps, the petitioners have been charged U/s. 306, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, but by reading the entire challan (Annexure P-2), there is no description as to the ingredients of section 306 of I.P.C. because as per the allegation and prosecution story, the petitioner has not committed any offence. He further contended that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the landmark matter of SANJU alias SANJAY SINGH SENGER V/s. STATE Of M.P, reported in (2002) 5 SCC 371 (also reported in 2002 (2) C.G.L.J. 128), has described the degree as to what may amount to offence under Section 306 of the IPC in a petition preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the above citation, where a person stated to the deceased to," go and die" then also the it will not amount to an offence under Section 306 of the I.P.C. and the person cannot be said to be an abettor under Section 107 of the I.P.C. Even Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh, in the matter of RAJENDRA DAS & OTHERS V/s STATE OF C.G., reported in 2013 (2) C.G.L.J. 387, has drawn a line for the offence 4 punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, by referring the judgment passed in Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar's case (Supra). He further contended that the police authorities (RESPONDENTS) is very well aware that the present petitioners have no role to play to the crime in question and that there exist no act of crime done by the petitioners because the deceased Ashish Singh committed Rape upon the petitioner no. 2 and when the petitioner no. 2 had made a written report (Annexure P/3) before the police and S.P. Durg, then out of fear, the deceased namely Ashish Singh committed suicide. It is further contended that the learned trial court didn't arrived to this act and without substantial proof had framed the charge for the offence punishable U/s 306 of IPC. It is therefore, prayed that the petition/revision may kindly be allowed and the framing of charge dated 12.12.2018 and the order dated 12.12.2018 (Annexure P-1), passed by the Court of learned 1st Additional Session Judge, Durg, District- Durg (C.G.), in Session Trial No. 160/2018, in respect to Sections 306, 34 of the I.P.C. may kindly be set aside cum altered (Only in respect to the petitioners) and petitioners may kindly be discharged/acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 306, 34 of the I.P.C., in the interest of justice. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants and perused the impugned order available on record with utmost circumspection. 7. Considering the facts of the case, submission made by learned counsel for the applicants. On perusal of record, I have found that the learned trial Court has framed the charge against the petitioners under Section 306 r/w 34 of IPC. On 5 perusal of the charge sheet, I have found that there is a suicide note as produced by the prosecution and there is evidence collected by the Investigating Officer with regard to the petitioners threatened the deceased and demanded Rs.20 lakhs, therefore, the deceased committed suicide. At the stage of charge, Court looks into the matter only that whether prima facie offence made out against the petitioners/accused which does not mean to convict the accused persons, therefore, on perusal of the record, this Court is of the considered opinion that prima facie offence is made out against the petitioners. 8. On perusal of the records, prima facie it reveals that case is made out against the petitioners/applicants and on perusal of the records, I have not found any illegality, any perversity or any jurisdictional error in the order of the trial Court. 9. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that there is no illegality and infirmity in the order passed by the trial Court and there is no any ground to set aside the order passed by the Court below. 10.Accordingly, the present criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant