RAJEEV KOURAV Vs. BAISAHAB
LAWS(SC)-2020-2-27
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on February 11,2020

Rajeev Kourav Appellant
VERSUS
Baisahab Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

SURESH GARODIA VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2022-8-24] [REFERRED TO]
SURESH GARODIA VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2022-8-24] [REFERRED TO]
UGGINA NAGAMANI VS. KONA PERSISURANI [LAWS(APH)-2022-4-14] [REFERRED TO]
UGGINA NAGAMANI VS. KONA PERSISURANI [LAWS(APH)-2022-4-14] [REFERRED TO]
ARUN MAJI VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2022-7-75] [REFERRED TO]
ARUN MAJI VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2022-7-75] [REFERRED TO]
K.S. SHIBU VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2021-8-103] [REFERRED TO]
K.S. SHIBU VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2021-8-103] [REFERRED TO]
RATTAN LAL VS. UNION TERRITORY OF J & K [LAWS(J&K)-2021-8-30] [REFERRED TO]
RATTAN LAL VS. UNION TERRITORY OF J & K [LAWS(J&K)-2021-8-30] [REFERRED TO]
SHER DIN VS. UT OF J & K [LAWS(J&K)-2021-8-102] [REFERRED TO]
SHER DIN VS. UT OF J & K [LAWS(J&K)-2021-8-102] [REFERRED TO]
GOUTAM MAJUMDAR VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2022-7-27] [REFERRED TO]
GOUTAM MAJUMDAR VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2022-7-27] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. AKHIL SHARDA [LAWS(SC)-2022-7-40] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. AKHIL SHARDA [LAWS(SC)-2022-7-40] [REFERRED TO]
SHIBU VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2021-8-66] [REFERRED TO]
SHIBU VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2021-8-66] [REFERRED TO]
SHARAD DARADE, SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2022-9-32] [REFERRED TO]
SHARAD DARADE, SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2022-9-32] [REFERRED TO]
PRASANTA DHAR VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2022-7-78] [REFERRED TO]
PRASANTA DHAR VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2022-7-78] [REFERRED TO]
MICHEAL FLOYD ESHWER VS. STATE [LAWS(KAR)-2022-2-68] [REFERRED TO]
MICHEAL FLOYD ESHWER VS. STATE [LAWS(KAR)-2022-2-68] [REFERRED TO]
MUNNALAL TANDE, S/O LATE GANGARAM TANDE VS. MUNNALAL TANDE, S/O LATE GANGARAM TANDE [LAWS(CHH)-2022-2-20] [REFERRED TO]
MUNNALAL TANDE, S/O LATE GANGARAM TANDE VS. MUNNALAL TANDE, S/O LATE GANGARAM TANDE [LAWS(CHH)-2022-2-20] [REFERRED TO]
SATISH VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2021-8-139] [REFERRED TO]
SATISH VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2021-8-139] [REFERRED TO]
HEMA JWAALINI VS. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [LAWS(MAD)-2022-4-91] [REFERRED TO]
HEMA JWAALINI VS. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [LAWS(MAD)-2022-4-91] [REFERRED TO]
LAKHINANDAN GOGOI VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2022-8-25] [REFERRED TO]
LAKHINANDAN GOGOI VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2022-8-25] [REFERRED TO]
PANKAJ TYAGI VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2022-3-41] [REFERRED TO]
PANKAJ TYAGI VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2022-3-41] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

L.NAGESWARA RAO,J. - (1.)The above Appeal is filed against the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Principal Seat at Jabalpur by which a criminal proceeding against Respondent Nos.1 and 3 was quashed in exercise of its power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the CrPC").
(2.)The Appellant filed a complaint before the Police Station Kareli, District Narsinghpur on which FIR No.285 of 2014 was registered on 08.05.2014. According to the complaint, it was urged that Respondent Nos.1 to 3 subjected Nilu, the wife of the Appellant to harassment due to which she committed suicide along with her two children. The first Respondent is the wife of elder brother of the Appellant. The second and third Respondents are the brothers of the first Respondent. The brother of the Appellant and Respondent No.1 were living separately. Respondent No.1 was not satisfied with the land which was given by the Appellant's father to her husband. Respondent No.1 along with her brothers, Respondent Nos.2 and 3, started harassing the family of the Appellant especially Nilu. According to the FIR, Respondent Nos.1 to used to quarrel with the deceased Nilu. On 05.05.2014, Respondent No.1 filed a false complaint against the Appellant and his parents. She also intimidated Mahendra Singh Kourav, maternal uncle of the Appellant by threatening him that she would pour kerosene oil and set herself on fire along with her children and implicate the entire family of the Appellant in a criminal case. Mahendra Singh Kourav made a complaint about the said incident of intimidation to the Police Station on 07.05.2014. The Appellant, his family members and Respondent Nos.1 to 3 were called to the Police Station and the matter was settled for the time being. Thereafter, Respondent Nos.1 to 3 went to the village Jhumri and assaulted the deceased Nilu. Unable to bear the torture, Nilu along with her children Harisharan aged 1 1/2 years and Ramsharan aged 1 1/2 years committed suicide by jumping in front of a moving train.
(3.)A final report was filed on 19.07.2014 on completion of investigation. A petition under Section 482 of the CrPC was filed for quashing the criminal proceedings. It was contended on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 to 3 before the High Court that the ingredients of Section 306 IPC have not been made out and the proceedings are liable to be quashed. According to Respondent Nos.1 to 3, the FIR and the charge sheet would only disclose that the entire family of the Appellant was being harassed. The Respondents cannot be held guilty of offence under Section 306 as there is nothing on record to show that they have incited the deceased to take the extreme step of committing suicide.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.