1 2025:CGHC:44271-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1715 of 2025 1 - Manmohan Das Haivaar S/o Late Ramudas Haivaar Aged About 39 Years R/o Rampur Ward, Dixit Colony Dhamtari, P.S. City Kotwali, District Dhamtari (C.G.), At Present- Plot No. 229 Saket Building Flat No. 102, 50th Cross 4th Main Nirupantunga Nagar Bangalore, Aarketi 7th Phase Bangalore (Karnataka) 2 - Savitri Haivaar W/o Manmohan Das Haivaar Aged About 36 Years R/o Rampur Ward, Dixit Colony Dhamtari, P.S. City Kotwali, District Dhamtari (C.G.), At Present- Plot No. 229 Saket Building Flat No. 102, 50th Cross 4th Main Nirupantunga Nagar Bangalore, Aarketi 7th Phase Bangalore (Karnataka) Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. P.S. City Kotwali Dhamtari District Dhamtari (C.G.) 2 - Triptidas Haivaar W/o Late Vinayak Das Haivaar Aged About 32 Years R/o Rampur Ward Dixit Colony Dhamtari P.S. City Kotwali Dhamtari District Dhamtari (C.G.) Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. T.K. Jha, Advocate For State : Mr. Hariom Rai, PL For Respondent No.2: Mr. A.D. Kuldeep, Advocate RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2025.09.02 14:29:09 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 01/092025 1. The instant petition, filed under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, seeks quashment of the entire charge-sheet No. 79/2024 dated 29.04.2025, as well as the order dated 01.05.2025 taking cognizance in Criminal Case No. 1170/2025 under Sections 306/34 of the IPC, presently pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari. 2. (a) Facts as projected in the present petition are that the petitioners No. 1 and 2 are husband and wife residing and working in Bengaluru, Karnataka, while the deceased Vinayakdas (brother of petitioner No. 1) lived with his wife, Smt. Triptidas Haivaar, and widowed mother, Smt. Vimla Das Haivaar, in Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. On 07.11.2022, Vinayakdas allegedly consumed poison and, after being admitted to Gupta Hospital, Dhamtari, expired on 09.11.2022. (b) During investigation, the police claimed recovery of a diary allegedly written by the deceased containing allegations of harassment against the petitioners and a note attributing his suicide to them. A copy of the diary note was supplied with the challan but was missing when the petitioner later obtained a certified copy of the record. The document was examined by the State Examiner of Questioned Documents, who 3 confirmed the handwriting but expressed no definite opinion on the signatures due to inconsistencies. (c) On 28.11.2024, FIR No. 0462/2024 was registered by the SHO, Dhamtari. Statements of respondent No. 2 (wife of the deceased) and other witnesses were recorded, and the petitioner was arrested on 09.01.2025. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet under Section 306 IPC was filed on 01.05.2025 before the learned CJM, Dhamtari, who thereafter took cognizance in Criminal Case No. 1170/2025. The said charge-sheet and order of cognizance are under challenge in the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that even if the prosecution case is accepted, Section 306 IPC is not attracted. The petitioners, permanent residents of Bengaluru, had no daily contact with the deceased in Dhamtari. The only quarrel was on 28.09.2022, while the suicide occurred on 07.11.2022, showing no proximity. The undated diary, recovered belatedly, is not a suicide note and contains no instigation; moreover, respondent No. 2 admitted the petitioners had returned to Bengaluru a day before the incident. The FIR was lodged after two years, ignoring the widowed mother’s testimony. Learned counsel has submitted that the Apex Court in Shenbagavalli v. Inspector of Police (2025 INSC 607), has held that in the absence of proximity or direct instigation, Section 306 IPC cannot be invoked, as such continuation of proceedings is thus an abuse of process, warranting quashing of the charge-sheet and cognizance order. 4 4. Learned counsel for the State as well as the complainant would submit that a diary note was recovered during investigation in which the deceased has mentioned the petitioners. The handwriting has been opined to be that of the deceased. On the basis of this material and statements recorded, the police found sufficient grounds to file charge- sheet under Section 306 IPC. It is further submitted that since a prima facie case is made out, the matter ought to proceed to trial and this Court may not interfere under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings. 6. On a bare perusal of the pleadings, it is evident that the petitioners, permanent residents of Bengaluru, had no regular or sustained contact with the deceased, who resided separately in Dhamtari. The only alleged quarrel occurred on 28.09.2022, whereas the deceased consumed poison on 07.11.2022, thereby negating any proximity or causal nexus. The undated diary note, seized belatedly, cannot qualify as a suicide note, as it contains no element of instigation or abetment within the meaning of Section 107 IPC. The handwriting expert confirmed only the body text while refraining from giving any conclusive opinion on the signatures due to inconsistencies, leaving the authorship unproved. Further, respondent No. 2 herself admitted that the petitioners had already returned to Bengaluru on 06.11.2022, a day prior to the incident, eliminating any possibility of immediate provocation. 5 7. The FIR itself was lodged two years after the death, based solely on belated statements, while the most material witness the widowed mother residing in the same household, was never examined. Such selective and delayed investigation creates serious doubt about the fairness and veracity of the prosecution case. In these circumstances, continuation of the criminal proceedings would be a misuse of judicial process, and the charge-sheet dated 29.04.2025 as well as the cognizance order dated 01.05.2025 in Criminal Case No. 1170/2025 cannot be sustained. 8. Thus, in light of the admitted fact that the alleged quarrel of 28.09.2022 had no proximity to the suicide of 07.11.2022, that the petitioners had already left for Bengaluru on 06.11.2022, that the diary note is undated and its signatures remain unproved, and that FIR No. 0462/2024 was lodged after an unexplained delay of two years with key witnesses being ignored, the essential ingredients of Section 306 IPC are wholly absent. Allowing the proceedings to continue would result in sheer abuse of process. Consequently, Charge-Sheet No. 79/2024 dated 29.04.2025 and the cognizance order dated 01.05.2025 in Criminal Case No. 1170/2025 pending before the learned CJM, Dhamtari, are hereby quashed. 9. The CRMP is, accordingly, allowed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Rahul