1 2025:CGHC:38632-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2435 of 2025 Subhadra Banjare W/o Ajay Kumar Banjare, Aged About 38 Years 196/1, Jharap, Kaitha, Jaijaipur District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh 495661 ... Petitioner versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Sakri, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Mallick Sudip Ravi, Advocate. For Respondent-State : Mr. Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 05 .08 .2025 1. In the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for following relief:- “(a) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash and set aside the FIR the Petitioner bearing No.236/2025 dated 17-04-2025 registered with Police Station Sakri, District Bilaspur, under Sections 306 r/w 34 of IPC and Charge sheet dated 06-05-2025 culminated into Sessions Case AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.08.06 13:10:42 +0530 2 No. 131/2025 pending before the Learned Special Judge (Atrocity), Bilaspur and entire criminal proceedings arising therefrom, including the order of framing of Charge dated 05-07-2025 on such terms and condition as this Hon'ble Court may deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice; (b) Pending the hearing and final disposal this Hon'ble Court be pleased to stay the proceedings in Sessions Case no. 131/2025 pending before the Ld. Special Judge (Atrocity), Bilaspur, C.G.; and (c) Pass any other order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice” 2. Facts of the case, in brief, is that the petitioner, is a government servant working as an Account-cum-Data Assistant under the National Health Mission (NHM) since 21.11.2012, currently posted at Primary Health Centre, Kharvani, Block Kartala, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. Deceased, Vijay Banjare, was the younger brother- in-law of the Petitioner. The deceased was residing independently in Bilaspur in a rented house. In February 2021, he got married; however, the marriage soon faced difficulties due to his past relationship involvement with one Ankita Anant (Accused No. 1 in the FIR), and also due to monetary debt owed to Raja Thakur (Accused No. 3 the FIR). Ankita Anant had sent WhatsApp messages to the father-in-law of the deceased on 16.04.2021 and on 27.05.2021, alleging that his son-in-law was a fraud, and saying 3 'Make him understand, otherwise I will file a case against him'. Further, another accused person Raja Thakur called the father-in- law of the deceased on 09.06.2021 (a day prior to the suicide) and stated that the deceased owed him a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only). Thereafter, upon being questioned by his father-in-law, mother-in-law, and wife, the deceased is stated to have explained that: "I was friendship with Ankita Anant before marriage, but since we couldn't get married, she has been harassing me. Raja Thakur is also repeatedly troubling me for money, and his sister-in-law is supporting Ankita (accused No.2/petitioner) and due to the harassment by them, I have become mentally distressed." Next day on 10.06.2021, Vijay Banjare allegedly consumed a pesticide (Rogor) and was admitted to a hospital, where he succumbed on 19/06/2021. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC is not made out against her from the material available on record, as there was no abetment or instigation on the part of the petitioner that led to the suicide of the deceased. He submits that the entire prosecution is based solely on an unsigned and unauthenticated suicide note allegedly left by the deceased, without any corroborating evidence. The suicide note does not contain any specific instance or proximate act of instigation or harassment by the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that no prima facie case made out under Section 306 of the IPC. Even if the prosecution case is taken at its face 4 value, no ingredients of abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the IPC are fulfilled. To support his contention, he placed reliance in the matter of Nipun Aneja and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2024 10 SCR 1483:2024 INSC 767. 4. Learned counsel for the State would submit that the petitioner has involved in the aforesaid offence and the name of the petitioner is mentioned in the FIR as well in the suicide note. Co-accused Ankita harassed the deceased by calling his father-in-law and Raja Thakur also harassed the deceased with respect of money, due to which, the deceased consumed poison and died. Allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner supported the co-accused persons Ankita and Raja Thakur to harass the deceased, which is evident from the suicide note. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and documents. 6. Having considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case, name of the petitioner as accused No.2 is mentioned in the FIR; the deceased in suicide note specifically mentioned that the petitioner supported the other co-accused persons namely Ankita Anant and Raja Thakur, who harassed the deceased by calling his father-in- law, hence, the present petitioner, who is sister-in-law of deceased supported the other co-accused persons to harass the deceased, and from the charge sheet, which contains the suicide note and the report of handwriting expert, it is established that the petitioner’s 5 role is there, we do not find any good ground to allow this petition at this stage. 7. Accordingly, the present CRMP is dismissed. SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Amardeep/Shoaib