RANJEET MITTALversusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR. ETC. ETC.

           [2024] 9 S.C.R. 811 : 2024 INSC 766

                  Ranjeet Mittal
                       v.
   The State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. Etc. Etc.
         (Criminal Appeal No(s). 3680-3682 of 2024)
                       03 September 2024
      [Vikram Nath and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.]


                     Issue for Consideration
High Court whether justified in quashing the charges against
Respondent Nos.2-5 (husband and in-laws of the victim-deceased)
holding that prima facie the respondents did not abet the deceased
to commit suicide.

                            Headnotes†
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Penal Code,
1860 – ss.498-A, 306, 34, 302, 201 – Victim died after allegedly
falling off from terrace – Trial court framed charges against
Respondent Nos.2-5 for abetment to commit suicide – Charges
if rightly quashed by High Court:
Held: No – High Court erred in quashing the order of trial court
framing charges – Deceased was being abused and ill-treated in
her matrimonial home – There was a serious argument between her
and her husband right before she allegedly fell off from terrace – The
husband took her to hospital on a handcart (thela) despite having
alternate options of using the Car – No ornaments were found on
her body – For quashing of criminal charges it must be shown that
there is no sufficient evidence to prove a prima facie case against
the accused persons – However, in the present case, considering the
statements by witnesses indicating abuse and torture of deceased
by her in-laws and other factual circumstances, prima facie case
is made against the accused persons – Given the statements of
witnesses, suspicious circumstances around death of deceased and
gravity of offense, the trial needs to be conducted to reach to the
truth – Orders passed by High Court, set aside – Trial to proceed
from the stage of framing of charges. [Paras 18, 19, 21, 22]

                         Case Law Cited
CBI v. Aryan Singh [2023] 2 SCR 819 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC
379 – relied on.
812                                                               [2024] 9 S.C.R.

                        Digital Supreme Court Reports


                                   List of Acts
       Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Penal Code, 1860.

                                List of Keywords
       Abetment to commit suicide; Quashing of charges; Abuse,
       Ill-treatment, Torture of deceased by in-laws; Fallen off from terrace;
       Suspicious circumstances; Gravity of offense; Deceased abused;
       Matrimonial home; Handcart (thela).

                               Case Arising From
       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal Nos.
       3680-3682 of 2024
       From the Judgment and Order dated 08.05.2023 of the High Court
       of M.P. at Gwalior in CRLR Nos. 5766, 5767 and 5768 of 2019

                            Appearances for Parties
       Abhay Gupta, Atul Gupta, Paramjeet Singh, Deepak Singh,
       Saksham Kapoor, Praveen Swarup, Advs. for the Appellant.
       Amit Sharma, A.A.G., Yashraj Singh Bundela, Kameshwar Nath
       Mishra, Mrs. Pratima Singh, Chanakya Baruah, Ms. Saloni, Shishir
       Kumar Saxena, R.N. Pareek, Ankur Parihar, Prashant Chaudhary,
       Advs. for the Respondents.

                  Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                      Order

1.     Leave granted.
2.     The appellant assails the common order dated 08.05.2023 passed by
       High Court for Judicature of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior in Criminal
       Revision No.5766 of 2019, Criminal Revision No. 5767 of 2019 and
       Criminal Revision 5768 of 2019 whereby the High Court allowed
       Criminal Revision filed by Respondent no. 2 to 5 and quashed the
       order dated 07.11.2019 passed by 3rd Additional Session Judge,
       District- Vidisha against Respondent No. 2 framing charges under
       section 498-A, 306 read with Section 34 IPC and in alternate under
       Section 302 read with Section 34, and 201 of Indian Penal Code.
       By the same order, the High Court also quashed the order passed
[2024] 9 S.C.R.                                                      813

                            Ranjeet Mittal v.
              The State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. Etc. Etc.

     on 13.11.2019 against Respondent No. 3 to 5, framing charges
     under section 498-A, 306 read with Section 34 and in alternate
     under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The
     Appellant Ranjit Mittal is the son of Complainant- Mr. Kailash Mittal
     who passed away on 21.02.2023. The Complainant was father of
     Anjali Agarwal, the deceased.
3.   The brief facts leading to framing of charges against Respondent
     No.2 to 5 are as follows:
4.   Deceased Anjali Agarwal was married to Respondent No.2 Sulabh
     Agarwal on 06.05.2006. After three years of marriage, daughter
     Mohi was born to them. In 2015, they had a son named Anshaj.
     She was living in her matrimonial home at Arihant Vihar Colony in
     Vidisha with her mother-in-law- Madhu Agarwal and father-in-law-
     Kailash Babu Agarwal who are Respondent No. 3 and 4 respectively.
     Respondent No. 5, Shilpi Agarwal is sister-in-law of the deceased
     and she is married.
5.   On 10.03.2018, a Merg intimation was registered at Police Station-
     Kotwali, District- Vidisha (M.P.) based on information by a ward boy
     working in District Hospital Vidisha that deceased Anjali Agarwal
     was brought dead to Hospital. She was brought by husband of the
     deceased Anjali Agrawal. It was reported that she had fallen from the
     terrace of her house. Thereafter, Merg No.16/2018 under Section 174
     of Cr.P.C. was recorded. Dead-body panchnama was prepared and
     dead body was sent for postmortem. As per the postmortem report
     dated 10.03.2018, the cause of death was hemorrhage and mode
     of death was shock.
6.   It is to be noted that on 10.03.2018, around 10.30 in morning the
     neighbor of the deceased- Sandeep Sunhare saw her lying on her
     stomach at a backdoor of another house. He informed her husband
     Sulabh Agarwal and all people assembled. Respondent took her to
     Chetan hospital by placing her on handcart. Another neighbor of
     the deceased, Mona Singh has stated that Anjali was not wearing
     anything on her hands and feet.
7.   On 17.05.2018, First Information Report (FIR No. 0381/2018)
     was registered against Respondent No. 2 Sulabh Agarwal under
     section 498-A and 306 of IPC. Further Section 201 and 34 of IPC
     were added against Respondent No. 2 to 5. Respondent No.2 to 5
     were arrested on 22.07.2018 and 08.07.2019.
814                                                      [2024] 9 S.C.R.

                      Digital Supreme Court Reports


8.     After the investigation, charge-sheet bearing no. 292/19 was filed
       under section 498 A, 306, 201 and 34 of IPC against the Respondent
       No. 2 to 5 on 27.09.2019. In the charge sheet, 27 witnesses were
       cited for examination. The case was committed for trial as ST No.
       55/2019 before the 3rd Additional Session Judge, District Vidisha.
9.     Thereafter, Charges were framed by the 3rd Additional Session
       Judge, District- Vidisha against the Respondent No. 2 under
       section 498 A, 306 read with Section 34 of IPC and in alternate
       section 302 read with section 34 and 201 of IPC by order dated
       07.11.2019. Against the Respondent No. 3 to 5 Charges were
       framed under section 498-A, 306 read with section 34 of IPC and
       in alternate under section 302 read with section 34 and 201 of IPC
       by order dated 13.11.2019.
10. Aggrieved by these orders, the accused Respondents filed Criminal
    Revisions under section 397 read with section 401 of CrPC, before
    the High Court of Judicature at Madhya Pradesh. The High Court
    by the Impugned order, set aside the order of trial court, thereby
    quashing the charges against Respondent No.2 to 5, holding that
    prima facie there is no material to show that Respondent accused
    persons in any manner abetted the deceased to commit suicide
    and only omnibus allegations have been levelled against them. The
    High Court also concluded that, at the most, there may be a family
    dispute, but that does not mean that Respondents have instigated
    the deceased to commit suicide and there is no evidence of abetment
    soon before her death. No ingredients for commission of offence under
    Section 306 or 302 of IPC are made out and matter simply appears
    to be of family dispute. Thus, it quashed the criminal proceedings
    against Respondent no. 2 to 5.
11. The Appellant has filed the present appeals against the order(s) of
    High Court. At this stage, it is important to consider the Statements
    recorded in the Merg report under Section 174 of Criminal Procedure
    Code.
12. As per the statement of Alok Kumar Agrawal, he knew the deceased
    for 15 years as she was daughter of his aunt’s sister-in-law. He is
    working as Supervisor in private company at Pithampur in District
    Dhar. The deceased contacted him two and half months before
    the incidence and they used to talk on phone calls. On the day of
[2024] 9 S.C.R.                                                         815

                            Ranjeet Mittal v.
              The State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. Etc. Etc.

     incidence, around 10 AM, he received a call from unknown number.
     The husband of deceased Sulabh Agarwal was talking on the other
     side. He spoke angrily and abused him. After 5-7 minutes Alok
     Agrawal received another call from Anjali where she was crying and
     asking him to come to Vidisha. Her husband snatched the phone
     and again started abusing him. He said that if you are not coming
     to Vidisha then I will come there. He further said, “now she (Anjali)
     will go to the hospital and then tell me when will you come. I am
     giving you time of 12 o’clock.” Later around 1.30 PM, Alok got to
     know about Anjali’s death. In his statement he mentions that Anjali
     was a sensible girl and she cannot commit suicide.
13. The father of the deceased, Kailash Narayan has stated that he
    received a call from Anjali’s in-laws that she has fallen from terrace
    and she is serious. When he reached her house, he found her dead
    body after postmortem. He states that they were not told how she
    fell and he suspects that her in-laws have killed her. After a month
    of marriage, the deceased had started complaining to him that her
    in-laws were not satisfied with the dowry they received and were
    constantly demanding more dowry. After the deceased had daughter,
    her mother-in-law and sister-in-law were angry and they started beating
    and abusing here. Even after birth of the son in 2015, they were
    torturing the deceased and not allowing her to visit parental home.
14. It has been further revealed from the statement of Rajesh Jain, who
    used to work at house of deceased, that the deceased was not
    treated well by her in laws as she would often get scolded by them.
    Additionally, Respondent No. 5 sister-in-law of Anjali, disliked her. She
    would argue with the deceased whenever she came to the house.
15. The Appellant is brother of deceased. He submits that the phone call
    with Alok Kumar one hour before the incidence shows foul play. Further,
    carrying the deceased in handcart (‘Thela’) despite having neighbors
    spot ready with their vehicles, creates a doubt that the husband
    himself did not want to save his wife’s life. There is a possibility of
    him with help of other accused persons, had pushed the deceased
    from terrace. Further, the fact that deceased was not wearing any
    jewelry at that time, creates a doubt on conduct of accused.
16. On the other hand, the Respondent No. 2 to 5 submit that FIR has
    been registered against them only due to pressure of electronic and
816                                                        [2024] 9 S.C.R.

                          Digital Supreme Court Reports


       print media. Respondent No. 2 carried the deceased in handcart
       only because the hospital was close to his house and it would have
       taken time for a car to get out. Mere harassment does not amount
       to abetment to suicide. Thus, there is no prima facie offence made
       out against the Respondents as there is no overt act indicating
       active involvement to instigate the deceased to commit suicide.
       Further, there were no ante mortem injuries and her injuries have
       come from falling from terrace. The same has been confirmed by
       the Medical officers.
17. We have considered the submissions of both the counsels and have
    perused through the record.
18. From the above facts and testimonies of witnesses, it is evident that
    deceased struggled in her matrimonial home and relations between
    her and her in-laws cannot be called healthy. The above testimonies
    indicate that she was being abused and ill-treated in the house.
    Additionally, the testimony of Alok Agarwal indicates that there was
    a serious argument between her and her husband right before she
    allegedly fell off from terrace. She was taken to hospital by husband
    on handcart despite having alternate options of using the Car. No
    ornaments were found on her body.
19. For quashing of criminal charges it must be shown that there is no
    sufficient evidence to prove a prima facie case against the accused
    person/s. However, in present case, considering the statements by
    witnesses indicating abuse and torture of deceased by her in-laws
    and other factual circumstances, prima facie case is made against
    the accused persons. Thus, it would be travesty of justice to put
    a complete stop on criminal proceedings. Further, the trial shall
    give adequate opportunity to the accused respondents to defend
    themselves.
20. This court in CBI v. Aryan Singh1 has held that,
            “10. As per the cardinal principle of law, at the stage of
            discharge and/or quashing of the criminal proceedings,
            while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C.,
            the Court is not required to conduct the mini trial.


1   [2023] 2 SCR 819 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 379
[2024] 9 S.C.R.                                                         817

                              Ranjeet Mittal v.
                The State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. Etc. Etc.

             At the stage of discharge and/or while exercising the
             powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C., the Court has a very
             limited jurisdiction and is required to consider “whether
             any sufficient material is available to proceed further
             against the accused for which the accused is required to
             be tried or not”.
21. Thus, at this stage, we do not deem it necessary to delve into
    the discussion of whether there is sufficient evidence to fulfil the
    requirements of particular sections of Indian Penal Code charged
    against the Respondents. The trial court shall decide whether charges
    are proved or not in due course. Given the statements of witnesses,
    suspicious circumstances around death of deceased and gravity of
    offense, we are of the opinion that the trial needs to be conducted to
    reach to the truth. Criminal proceedings against accused Respondent
    No. 2 to 5 shall be thus continued.
22. The High Court erred in quashing the order of trial court framing
    charges. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeals are allowed and the orders
    passed by High Court for Judicature of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior
    in Criminal Revision No.5766 of 2019, Criminal Revision No. 5767
    of 2019 and Criminal Revision 5768 of 2019 are set aside. The trial
    will proceed as per law from the stage of framing of charges. It is
    however, made clear that any other observations made in this order
    shall not influence the Trial Court which shall proceed with the trial
    and decide the same on the basis of evidence led before it.
23. Criminal Appeals Nos. 003680 – 003682 of 2024 stand allowed as
    above.

     Result of the Case: Appeals allowed.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey