- (1.) HEARD .
(2.) THIS petition is for quashing the criminal proceeding pending against the petitioner in Criminal Case No. 1912/07 in the Court of CJM, Shivpuri for the offence punishable under section 306 of IPC. This fact is not disputed by both the parties that one Santosh s/o Shiv Prasad Shrivastava committed suicide on 23rd October, 2007 and as per the post -mortem report dated 24th October, 2007, it is opined by the doctor that - 'In my opinion mode of death is cardio respiratory failure due to poisoning, leads to death. Duration within 24 hours since p.m.' It is also admitted that one suicidal note was left by the deceased. The relevant parts against the petitioner in the suicidal note are as under : JUDGEMENT_118_MPWN2_2008.jpg It is also admitted that the witnesses Neeraj, the son of the deceased, Smt. Saroj, the widow of the deceased, and Ku. Aradhana, the daughter of the deceased, have stated in their statements recorded on 30th October, 2007 under section 161 of CrPC that on the date of incident i.e. on 23rd October, 2007, the petitioner came along with Rakesh Sahgal and demanded money from the deceased. When the deceased requested that he will pay the amount within a few days, both have threatened him that if the money is not paid upto the evening, he will get the dead -body of his son and his daughter will be kidnapped. Thereafter the deceased went out of the house and after some time it is informed that he has fallen down on earth. He was admitted in the hospital where he died. It is also stated by these witnesses that prior to this incident, similar threats have been given by the aforesaid two persons to the deceased.
(3.) THE criminal proceeding has been assailed by Shri Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner, only on the ground that vide afore - quoted suicidal note and the statements of the witnesses, it appears that the deceased was indebted and he was to pay an amount of debt to the petitioner and other persons. Cases were pending in the Court in which warrants were issued against him. The petitioner simply demanded debtor the loan advanced to the deceased. Behind the aforesaid threat given to the deceased, their intention was to demand loan only. Such threat cannot be considered as abetment to commit suicide which is a material ingredient for the aforesaid offence. In support, he has drawn attention on the following orders passed by this Court in three different cases : (1) Pramod Kumar and another v. State of M.P. [2007 (II) MPWN 26]. (2) Prakashchand v. State of M.P. [2007 (I) MPWN 20]. (3) Paramjeetsingh Chawala v. State of M.P. [2007 CriLJ 3343]. ;