1 2025:CGHC:5013 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2288 of 2018 Dara Singh Parihar S/o Shri Gopal Singh Parihar Aged About 40 Years R/o Q.No. 200/b Shivmangal Apartment ,ring Road Bilaspur ,police Station Tarbahar ,tahsil Bilaspur Ditrict Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. Permanant Address -Ward No. 46 Basantrpur ,police Station Basantpur Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer,police Station Kumhari ,District- Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - Superitendent Of Police Durg, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Surfaraj Khan, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Subha Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Judgment on Board 28.01.2025 1. Heard Mr. Surfaraj Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Subha Shrivastava, learned Panel Lawyer for respondents / State. KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 2. The petitioner has filed this petition with following prayer: “It is therefore, prayed that the petition may kindly be allowed and the entire criminal prosecution (criminal case) drawn in final report (challan) No. 132/2018 for the offence punishable under Sections 306/34 of the I.P.C. (Annexure P-1), only in respect to the petitioner and entire Final Report (Challan) arising out of Crime No. 118/2018, registered by the Police Station Kumhari (Respondent No.1), may kindly be quashed and the petitioner may kindly be acquitted for the offence punishable U/s 306/34 of the I.P.C., in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal 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 co-accused namely Neelima Singh @ Neelam @ Neelu, Priya Rajpur and the petitioner herein. On 17.04.2018, an F.I.R. No. 118/2018, under Section 306/34 of the I.P.C. is lodged by the police of Police Station- Kumhari against the petitioner and 2 other co-accused persons Neelima Singh @ Neelam @ Neelu & Priya Rajput (Who are real sisters). However, the deceased namely Ashish Singh was a Police Constable and was posted at Bhilai. Deceased has actually committed sexual intercourse with the co-accused Neelima Singh @ Neelam @ Neelu, for which the co-accused Neelima Singh @ Neelam @ Neelu has lodged report 3 against the deceased on 12/03/2018 (One Month before the date of incident), at the office of Superintendent of Police Durg. The co- accused Neelima Singh @ Neelam @ Neelu even consumed poison and was hospitalized in District Hospital Bilaspur. Wherein, the deceased Ashish Singh has admitted the co-accused Neelima Singh @ Neelam @ Neelu by showing her to be the wife. The petitioner is on bail granted by this Hon'ble Court in M.Cr.C. No. 5189/2018. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prosecution agency acted with material irregularities and had lodged the F.I.R. and final report, with non-application of mind because by perceiving (to see) section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, any prudent person can come to a conclusion that, there is no instigation or abetment (as defined in Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code) having been done by the petitioner, as the petitioner is residing separately at Bilaspur from the deceased. Perhaps, on the date of incident, the petitioner was Champa, as the petitioner is employed in Bajaj Allianz on the post of Additional Chief Branch Manager, Branch- Champa. The instigation and abetment was in fact not done by the petitioner. Both the deceased and co- accused Neelima Singh have come to meet the petitioner in Bajaj Allianz office, when the petitioner was posted as Senior Branch Manager at Bilaspur for the employment of Co-accused Neelima Singh, but since the co-accused Neelima Singh was not having any document like PAN Card and educational qualification 4 documents, so the petitioner has refused to provide Job (employment) to co-accused Neelima Singh. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the prosecution agency committed a great mistake of facts as well as law without forgoing with the provisions of section 306 of the I.P.C, which makes the incident as crystal clear that, the act as per the allegation of the prosecution will not amount to an offence as defined in Section 107 of the I.P.C. Wherefore, once the section 107 of the I.P.C. is not made out, then the person cannot be prosecuted under Section instead section 306 of the I.P.C. As the prosecution agency arrived to a wrong conclusion by setting criminal law in motion against the petitioner, as this is the only right time to challenge the final report because once the trial will be flown accordingly to the final report as framed and otherwise, once the trial is over then the challenge is restricted and the innocent petitioner would be sent in jail again and his future would be ruined. The object of inserting section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, were expedient by the legislature to protect and safeguard the interest of victimized, but due to its misuse by the police and further setting forth the criminal law in motion, the very object has been disrupted and the genuine victimized are devoid of justice on account of wrong charge for the act not formulated by the prosecution. Whereas, the learned trial court didn't arrived to this act and without substantial proof had framed the charge for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the I.P.C. by copying the 5 baseless story developed by the prosecution, by filing the Final Report (Challan). He lastly relief upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Dhariwal Tobacco Products Ltd. & Others vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2009) 2 SCC 370 and in the matter of Sanju Alias Sanjay Singh Senger vs. State of M.P. reported in (2002) 5 SCC 371. 6. Learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State opposes the submissions and prayer made by the petitioner and submits that in the present matter, charge-sheet has already been filed and the case is fixed for framing of charges and it has to be investigated and taken to its logical end. She further submits that during the investigation, it was found that Neelima Singh @ Neelam @ Neelu had lodged a complaint against the deceased Ashish. Further, Neelima Singh @ Neelam @ Neelu, Dara Singh and Priya Rajput alias Soni used to harass the deceased over the phone and threatened to implicate him in a rape case. All three of them used to demand Rs. 25,00,000 from Ashish Singh in lieu of not filing the case. Fed up with the harassment of the accused, the deceased hanged himself in his house, resulting in the death of Ashish Singh. During the investigation, the suicide letter of the deceased was recovered from his house along with three torn pages of the diary, in which the deceased has written the names of Neelima Singh @ Neelam @ Neelu, Dara Singh Parihar and Priya Rajput alias Soni responsible for his death. Thus, it is crystal clear that charge-sheet discloses cognizable offences against the 6 petitioner and hence at this stage, no interference is warranted. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with petition. 8. Perusal of the records goes to show that during the investigation, the suicide letter of the deceased was recovered from his house in which, the deceased has written the names of Neelima Singh @ Neelam @ Neelu, Dara Singh Parihar (applicant herein) and Priya Rajput alias Soni responsible for his death. Hence, charge- sheet discloses the commission of a cognizable offence against the petitioner and the trial has to be brought to its logical end. Further, since the trial is still pending consideration and the charges are yet to be framed, hence, no good ground has been raised to interfere in the matter and quash the charge-sheet at this stage. 9. Accordingly, this petition being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. The Interim order, if any, granted earlier stands vacated. 10. The Registrar Judicial is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal